Clean Energy Technology Observatory, Renewable fuels of non-biological origin in the European Union : status report on technology development, trends, value chains and markets : 2024.
Date: 2024-11-20
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: biofuel, biomass, energy technology, hydrogen, innovation, renewable energy, report, research and development, substitute fuel, value chain

ISSN 1831-9424 

ISSN  

CLEAN ENERGY 
CLEAN ENERGY 
TECHNOLOGY 
TECHNOLOGY 
OBSERVATORY
OBSERVATORY

Renewable Fuels of Non-Biological 
Origin in the European Union 

STATUS REPORT ON TECHNOLOGY 
DEVELOPMENT, TRENDS, VALUE CHAINS & 
MARKETS 

4

2

0

2

 EUR 40074 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This document is a publication by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge 
service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The contents of this 
publication do not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission. Neither the European 
Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this 
publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the 
source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the referenced source. The designations 
employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the 
part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or 
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. 

Contact information 
Name: Marco Buffi 
Address: Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy 
Email: marco.buffi@ec.europa.eu 

EU Science Hub 
https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu 

JRC139422 

EUR 40074 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-68-20994-3   ISSN 1831-9424   doi:10.2760/4751991 

KJ-01-24-078-EN-N 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2024 

© European Union, 2024 

The reuse policy of the European Commission documents is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 
December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Unless otherwise noted, the reuse 
of this document is authorised under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence 
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and 
any changes are indicated.  

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the European Union permission must be 
sought directly from the copyright holders. 
- Cover page illustration, © SnowElf - stock.adobe.com_911085370

How to cite this report: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Buffi, M., Motola, V., Rejtharova, J., Scarlat, N., Hurtig, 
O., Georgakaki, A., Letout, S., Mountraki, A., Salvucci, R. and Schade, B., Clean Energy Technology Observatory: Renewable 
Fuels of Non-Biological Origin in the European Union - 2024 Status Report on Technology Development, Trends, Value 
Chains and Markets, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2024, https://data.europa.eu/
doi/10.2760/4751991, JRC139422.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 
Foreword on the Clean Energy Technology Observatory ......................................................................................................................... 4 
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 
1  Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 
1.1  Scope and context ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 
1.2  EU legislative framework.......................................................................................................................................................................... 9 
1.3  Methodology and Data Sources ........................................................................................................................................................ 10 
2  Technology status and development trends ......................................................................................................................................... 12 
2.1  Technology readiness level .................................................................................................................................................................. 12 
Hydrogen production ................................................................................................................................................................ 13 
2.1.1 
2.1.2 
Carbon capture ............................................................................................................................................................................. 14 
2.1.3  Nitrogen separation ................................................................................................................................................................... 15 
Fuel synthesis: Power-to-Gas.............................................................................................................................................. 15 
2.1.4 
Fuel synthesis: Power-to-Liquid ........................................................................................................................................ 17 
2.1.5 
2.2  Current Installed Capacity and Potential Production............................................................................................................ 25 
2.3  Technology Costs ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 34 
2.4  Public RD&I Funding and Investments .......................................................................................................................................... 37 
2.5  Private RD&I funding ................................................................................................................................................................................ 42 
2.6  Patenting trends .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 45 
2.7  Scientific publication trends ................................................................................................................................................................. 45 
2.8  Sustainability/resilience .......................................................................................................................................................................... 48 
3  Conclusions................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 49 
References .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 50 
List of abbreviations and definitions ................................................................................................................................................................. 57 
List of figures ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 59 
List of tables ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60 
Annexes ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 61 
Annex 1 Sustainability Assessment Framework ......................................................................................................................................... 62 
Annex 2 Energy System Models and Scenarios: POTEnCIA and POLES-JRC ............................................................................. 71 
AN 2.1 POTEnCIA Model ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 71 
AN 2.1.1 Model Overview .......................................................................................................................................................................... 71 
AN 2.1.2 POTEnCIA CETO 2024 Scenario ........................................................................................................................................ 72 
AN 2.2 POLES-JRC model .................................................................................................................................................................................. 73 
AN 2.2.1 Model Overview .......................................................................................................................................................................... 73 
AN 2.2.2 POLES-JRC Model description ............................................................................................................................................ 74 
AN 2.2.3 Global CETO 2°C scenario 2024 ....................................................................................................................................... 75 

1 

 
AN 2.3 Distinctions for the CETO 2024 Scenarios - POLES-JRC vs. POTEnCIA ............................................................... 77 
Annex 3 Installed capacity divided per sector.............................................................................................................................................. 79 

2 

 
 
 
Abstract 

This  report  investigates  the  status  and  trend  of  Renewable  Fuels  of  Non-Biological  Origin  (RFNBO),  except 
hydrogen, which are needed to cover part of the EU’s demand for low carbon renewable fuels in the coming 
years. The report is an update of the CETO 2023 report. Most of the conversion technologies investigated have 
been already demonstrated at small-scale, and the current EU legislative framework under the recast of the 
Renewable Energy Directive (EU) 2018/2001 (Directive EU 2023/2413) sets specific targets for their use. As a 
pre-requisite,  well-established  solid  hydrogen  supply  chains  are  needed,  together  with  carbon  capture 
technologies to provide carbon dioxide as Carbon Capture and Use (CCU). Fuels that may be produced starting 
from H2 and CO2 or N2 are hydrocarbons, alcohols and ammonia. RFNBO may play a crucial role in the energy-
transition  towards  decarbonisation,  especially  in  hard-to-abate  sectors  where  direct  electrification  is  not 
possible.  In  addition,  most  RFNBO  can  use  existing  infrastructure.  The  growing  interest  in  these  fuels  is 
witnessed by the many funding programmes which are today available. Moreover, EU leads the sector in terms 
of patents, companies and demonstration activities. Finally, the report considers the major challenges and the 
opportunities for a rapid market uptake of such fuels.  

3 

 
 
 
Foreword on the Clean Energy Technology Observatory 

The European Commission set up the Clean Energy Technology Observatory (CETO) in 2022 to help address 
the complexity and multi-faced character of the transition to a climate-neutral society in Europe. The EU’s 
ambitious energy and climate policies create a necessity to tackle the related challenges in a comprehensive 
manner, recognizing the important role for advanced technologies and innovation in the process.  

CETO is a joint initiative of the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC), who run the observatory, 
and Directorate Generals Research and Innovation (R&I) and Energy (ENER) on the policy side. Its overall 
objectives are to: 

   monitor the EU research and innovation activities on clean energy technologies needed for the delivery of 

the European Green Deal  

   assess the competitiveness of the EU clean energy sector and its positioning in the global energy market  

   build on existing Commission studies, relevant information  & knowledge in Commission services and 

agencies, and the Low Carbon Energy Observatory (2015-2020) 

   publish reports on the Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) SETIS (SET-Plan Information System) 

online platform 

CETO provides a repository of techno- and socio-economic data on the most relevant technologies and their 
integration in the energy system. It targets in particular the status and outlook for innovative solutions as well 
as the sustainable market uptake of both mature and inventive technologies. The project serves as primary 
source of data for the Commission’s annual progress reports on competitiveness of clean energy technologies. 
It also supports the implementation of and development of EU research and innovation policy.   

The observatory produces a series of annual reports addressing the following themes:  

   Clean Energy Technology Status, Value Chains and Market: covering advanced biofuels, batteries, 

bioenergy, carbon capture utilisation and storage, concentrated solar power and heat, geothermal heat 
and power, heat pumps, hydropower & pumped hydropower storage, novel electricity and heat storage 
technologies, ocean energy, photovoltaics, renewable fuels of non-biological origin (other), renewable 
hydrogen, solar fuels (direct), wind (offshore and onshore), fuel cells and innovative storage. 

   Clean Energy Technology System Integration: building-related technologies, digital infrastructure for 

smart energy system, industrial and district heat & cold management, standalone systems, transmission 
and distribution technologies, smart cities and innovative energy carriers and supply for transport. 

   Foresight Analysis for Future Clean Energy Technologies using Weak Signal Analysis. 

   Clean Energy Outlooks: Analysis and Critical Review. 

   System Modelling for Clean Energy Technology Scenarios. 

   Overall Strategic Analysis of Clean Energy Technology Sector. 

More details are available on the CETO web pages. 

4 

 
Acknowledgements 

The authors would like to thank: 

•  Maria Georgiadou and Thomas Schleker (DG RDT) for their review and comments.  

•  Nigel Taylor (CETO project leader, JRC.C.2) for support, review and comments. 

• 

The JRC.C.6 energy system modelling teams for providing energy scenarios:  

o 

o 

Authors: 

from POTEnCIA: Wegener, M., Jaxa-Rozen, M., Gea Bermudez, J., Neuwahl, F., R., Sikora, P., 
and Rózsai, M. 

from POLES-JRC: Schmitz A., Keramidas, K., Fosse, F., Dowling, P, Russ, P. 

Marco Buffi, Vincenzo Motola, Jana Rejtharova, Nicolae Scarlat, Oliver Hurtig - JRC Ispra Unit C.2 

Aliki Georgakaki, Simon Letout and Aikaterini Mountraki - JRC Petten Unit C.7 

Raffaele Salvucci, Burkhard Schade - JRC Seville Unit C.6 

5 

 
 
 
Executive Summary 

Renewable Fuels of Non-Biological Origin (RFNBO) are synthetic fuels produced from hydrogen derived from 
water and renewable energy (except biomass sources) in the form of heat or electricity. RFNBO consist in either 
i) liquid and gaseous fuels derived from hydrogen and CO2 produced from fossil or biological sources (e.g. flue 
gases, biomethane separation from syngas, etc.), DAC (Direct Air Capture) technologies and other non-renewable 
and natural sources, or ii) liquid and gaseous fuels derived from hydrogen combined with N2 captured from air 
in  the  case  of  ammonia  (NH3)  production.  However,  since  CO2  and  N2  are  not  energy  carriers,  all  energy 
transferred into such carbon- or nitrogen-based fuels derives from hydrogen. Hence the present report focuses 
on the downstream processes after hydrogen production and carbon capture, i.e. the synthesis reactions that 
lead to methane (CH4), drop-in liquid fuels such as gasoline, kerosene or diesel, and other fuels/chemicals such 
as alcohols and ammonia. The report is an update of the CETO 2023 report. 

Figure 1. Production pathway from renewable feedstock (bottom) to RFNBO (top).  

Fuels

•Hydrocarbons (methane, 
gasoline, diesel, kerosene)
•Alcohols (methanol, ethanol) 
•Ammonia

RFNBO conversion

•Methanation
•Methanolysis
•Fischer-Tropsch reaction
•Haber-Bosch reaction

First conversion step

•Hydrogen
•Carbon dioxide
•Nitrogen

Feedstock

• Renewable energy (to produce 
electricity and/or heat, 
excluding the bio-derived ones) 
and water

Source: JRC Elaboration 

Specifically,  this  study  is  based  on  assessments  of  TRL,  energy  needs  and  environmental  impact  of  the 
conversion pathways already available from the fossil fuel refining and chemical industry. It also provides a 
brief overview on the current legislation and market situation for this specific category of fuels. Other promising 

6 

 
 
 
 
novel  processes  such  as  artificial  photosynthesis,  microbial  electrolysis  and  bio-CO2  splitting  are  also  being 
investigated, but they are still limited to small scale demo activities.  

RFNBO consist in hydrocarbons produced from synthesis processes are mainly  paraffins, hence drop-in fuels 
which  can  already  be  used  in  the  existing  fuel  infrastructures  and  vehicles.  An  extensive  technology  review 
shows  that  such  technologies  would  be  ready  for  the  market  uptake,  but  the  upstream  processes  of  H2 
production  and  CO2  capture  still  need  to  be  developed  at  large  scale  for  commercial  production.  As  a 
consequence, the overall current TRL of the whole conversion pathways is about 6-7, i.e. pilot scale projects. 
Some conversion technologies as Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, Haber-Bosch process and others are  already at 
high TRL as they were developed over the years to operate with fossil-based feedstock. As such, they can be 
easily retrofitted to processes powered by a renewable feedstock. Energy balance and environmental impacts 
are evaluated considering the most recent findings from peer-reviewed papers, technical reports and the JECv5 
Well-to-Tank.  At  EU  level,  the  main  requirements  for  classifying  a  fuel  as  RFNBO  are  based  on  renewable 
electricity  as  input  and  a  minimum  70%  GHG  emissions  reduction  compared  to  94  gCO2e/MJ  (fossil  fuel 
comparator) as specified by the Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/1184 of the Renewable Energy Directive EU 
(2018/2001,  also  called  RED  II),  which  provides  the  methodology  for  calculating  life-cycle  greenhouse  gas 
emissions.  Under this regulation,  when the electricity  used to  produce RFNBO is fully renewable, the carbon 
intensity of electricity is assumed to be zero. 

The analysis on the past and current public and private funding mainly focuses on EU Horizon 2020 and Horizon 
Europe framework programmes for research and innovation, where specific project descriptions are provided 
(focusing on TRL and scale of production). Several  of these  demonstrated that the current technologies are 
ready  to  be  scaled  up.  The  Innovation  Fund  topic  B.2  will  promote  the  commercial  demonstration  and 
deployment of small- and large-scale low carbon, innovative projects.  

Data on current available plants producing RFNBO in EU are mainly extracted from BEST-IEA Bioenergy Task 
39’ database and other mapping exercises integrating data from other recent technical reports. The analysis 
shows that the current capacity is still low and dedicated only to demonstration initiatives. 

Bibliometric trends and collaboration networks are investigated by means of SCOPUS’ web tool, focusing on 
specific keywords that address to feedstock, processes and fuel type. From the analysis it emerges that EU is 
the leader for both number of publications and for active international collaboration networks.  

The analysis on patenting trend is included in the CETO’ report on “Advanced Biofuels”, since most of synthesis 
processes used for RFNBO production coincide with processes converting bio-based molecules into fuels, while 
the production of hydrogen is investigated in CETO report on “Water Electrolysis and Hydrogen” and CO2 capture 
is addressed specifically in the report “Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage”. The present classification of 
CETO reports is based on fuel type or technology deployed, so there is no differentiation based on feedstock or 
energy origin, making some analyses outside the boundaries of each report.  

Market assessment is only briefly considered since there is still no trade of RFNBO. Hence the present analysis 
is limited to investigating the main initiatives developed by the relevant trade associations.  

Finally, the report addresses challenges, opportunities and barriers to further develop the sector, indicators to 
monitor the trend, and current limiting factors towards the RFNBO’ market uptake.  

7 

 
 
 
Table 1. CETO SWOT analysis for the competitiveness of RFNBO. 

Strengths: 

Weaknesses: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

several technologies (HB and FT) are already 
available  and  can  be  easily  retrofitted  to 
work with renewable hydrogen; 
contribution  to  energy  diversification  and 
energy security; 
use  of  existing  fuel  infrastructure  with  no 
additional investment needed; 
solution  for  hard  to  electrify  sectors  (e.g. 
aviation,  maritime)  and  heavy 
road 
transport; 
can be blended with fossil fuels, or used as 
drop-in 
technical 
without 
fuels 
modifications in the engines. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

not 

are 

technologies 

large  additional 
renewable  electricity 
capacity and generation needed and robust 
power connections and grid infrastructure; 
yet 
several 
demonstrated  for  the  unavailability  of 
hydrogen/CO2 supply; 
high  conversion  and  efficiency 
losses 
associated  with  the  production  and  use  of 
RFNBO from renewable electricity compared 
to the direct use of such electricity; 
for 
initial 
high 
construction; 
high fuel production cost, well above fossil 
fuels; 
renewable 
intermittent  production  of 
electricity  like  solar  and  wind  necessitates 
for backup power resources. 

investment 

plant 

Opportunities: 

Threats: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

flexibility  in  the  use  of  solar  and  wind 
electricity production; 
energy  storage  solution/grid  balancing  and 
way  to  use  the  surplus  of  renewable 
electricity; 
contribution  to  energy  diversification  and 
energy security; 
contribution to the decarbonisation of hard 
to abate sectors such as aviation, shipping 
and  heavy  road  freight  transport,  and  the 
reduction  of  dependency  on  fossil  fuel 
imports; 
job  opportunities  along  the  supply  chain, 
including skilled labour.  

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 
• 

• 
• 

challenging  investments  in  specific  value 
chain  due  to  the  recent  development  of 
long-term  policies  and  still  evolving 
mechanisms of funding/rewarding schemes; 
potential barriers in the investments of CO2 
recovery from fossil sources, which will not 
be eligible post-2035 for power companies 
and post-2041 for steel, cement companies; 
slow  market  uptake  due  to  insufficient 
incentives; 
failure 
to 
through technology improvement; 
competition in renewable electricity use; 
insufficient  development  of  the  electricity 
grid infrastructure; 
low availability of cheap-enough hydrogen; 
risk  of  certifying  renewability  even  if  not 
generated with renewable energy electricity. 

reach  cost  competitiveness 

Source: JRC Analysis

8 

 
 
 
  
 
1 

Introduction 

1.1  Scope and context 

Renewable fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBO) have been defined for the first time in the recast Renewable 
Energy Directive (European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2018) (RED II, 2018/2001), that 
introduced this category of fuels as those produced from hydrogen deriving from renewable energy (except 
biomass sources) in the form of heat or electricity, and  CO2 deriving from fossil sources such as flue gases, 
from Direct Air Capture (DAC) technologies and from other non-renewable, biological and natural sources, or N2 
captured from air. The RFNBO category includes synthetic hydrocarbons-, alcohols- and ammonia-based fuels. 
Together with advanced biofuels,  RFNBO consist in a viable alternative to fossil liquids fuels for the market 
being fully drop-in (Panoutsou et al., 2021), so they do not require dedicated infrastructure for distribution and 
storage (Yugo and Soler, 2019). They can also be blended with existing fuels so long as they meet fuel quality 
and safety standards. 

The present report describes and analyses the conversion pathways  for producing RFNBO, starting from the 
main process inputs, i.e. hydrogen and CO2 (captured by CCU), whose conversion pathways will be reported in 
other CETO reports. It is an update of the CETO 2023 report on RFNBO (Buffi et al., 2023). 

1.2  EU legislative framework 

The Renewable Energy Directive recast (EU 2018/2001) or RED II (European Parliament and the Council of the 
European Union, 2018) sets the framework towards targets and sustainability criteria for alternative renewable 
transport fuels, including RFNBO.  

In February 2023 the Commission has adopted two Delegated Acts (DAs), as required under Article 27(3) of the 
Renewable Energy Directive (2018/2001), defining the rules to produce RFNBO (European Commission, 2024). 
Such  documents  integrated  EU  regulatory  framework  for  hydrogen  and  set  a  new  framework  to  develop 
supporting schemes and State aids to develop the hydrogen sector.  

In particular, the first Delegated Act defines when hydrogen, hydrogen-based fuels or other energy carriers can 
be considered as a renewable fuel of non-biological origin, or RFNBO. The rules are to ensure that these fuels 
can only be produced from “additional” renewable electricity generated at the same time and in the same area 
as that of the fuel production. 

The second Delegated Act sets the methodology to calculate GHG emissions savings from RFNBO and recycled 
carbon fuels (RCFs). The methodology takes into account the full lifecycle of the fuels to calculate the emissions 
and the  associated  savings.  It  also  establishes that  the  greenhouse  gas emissions  savings from the  use  of 
RFNBO and RCFs shall be at least 70%, compared to the fuels they are replacing. 

The  European  Commission  periodically  updates  a  “Q&A”  document  available  online  that  clarifies  the  rules 
reported in such documents  (European Commission, 2024). Today, three voluntary schemes are available to 
certify RFNBO according to the EU rules (European Commission website, 2024).  

The last revision of the Renewable Energy Directive set by the Fit-for-55 package (Directive (EU) 2023/2413) 
(European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2023a) raises the EU's binding renewable target 
for 2030 to a minimum of 42.5% of the gross final energy consumption and almost doubling the existing share 
of renewable energy in the EU. However, the Member States shall strive to increase the share of energy from 
renewables in the gross final consumption of energy in 2030 to 45 %.  

On transport, the updated targets gives the possibility for Member States to choose between: 

• 

• 

a binding target of 14.5% reduction of greenhouse gas intensity in transport from the use of 
renewables by 2030; 
or a binding target of at least 29% share of renewables within the final consumption of energy in the 
transport sector by 2030. 

9 

The Directive 2023/2413 also sets a binding combined sub-target of 5.5% for advanced biofuels (generally 
derived from non-food-based feedstock) and RFNBO (including the targets for aviation and maritime sector 
described later in the text) in the share of renewable energies supplied to the transport sector. 

Within  this  target,  there  is  a  minimum  requirement  of  1%  of  RFNBO  (including  hydrogen)  in  the  share  of 
renewable energies supplied to the transport sector in 2030. 

The Directive 2023/2413 requires that industry would increase their use of renewable energy annually by 1.6%. 
The Directive also requires that the contribution of RFNBO used for final energy and non-energy purposes shall 
be at least 42 % of the hydrogen used for final energy and non-energy purposes in industry by 2030, and 60 
% by 2035. 

The directive introduces the possibility for Member States to discount the contribution of RFNBO in industry use 
by 20% under two conditions: 

• 

• 

if the member states’ national contribution to the binding overall EU target meets their expected 
contribution 
the share of hydrogen from fossil fuels consumed in the member state is not more than 23% in 
2030 and 20% in 2035. 

RFNBO  and  advanced  biofuels  can  also  contribute  to  the  targets  imposed  by  ReFuel  EU  Aviation  (European 
Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2023c)  and FuelEU Maritime (European Parliament and the 
Council of the European Union, 2023b), which set a target of 70% of SAFs (in terms of energy) and -80% as 
GHGs reduction intensity (compared to the fossil fuel comparator for the maritime fuel) respectively, by 2050. 
It  is  worth  mentioning  that  both  regulations  have  minimum  targets  for  RFNBO  supply  to  meet  the  RED 
requirements by 2030 and growing targets towards 2050. Specifically, ReFuelEU Aviation set a minimum share 
of RFNBO at 35% within the commercial blend by 2050, while FuelEU Maritime has a mandate of RFNBO use 
at 2% (minimum) starting from 2035. To promote the uptake of the RFNBO in aviation and maritime sectors, 
the share of RFNBO supplied in the aviation and maritime transport modes shall be considered to be 1.5 times 
their energy content towards the RED transport targets. The RFNBO that count towards that target include those 
used directly in transport, in biofuel production, and in petroleum refining.  

Aviation and maritime sectors have also obligations for the Emission Trading System that has been amended 
by the Fit-for-55, and new rules for RFNBO accounting within the Monitoring and Reporting Regulation have 
been recently introduced (The European Commission (EC), 2024). 

Finally,  it  is  worth  mentioning  that  in  March  2024,  the  EU  adopted  the  Regulation  (EU)  2023/851  for  CO₂ 
emission performance standards for cars and vans (European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 
2023d) which potentially depicted a new scenario for RFNBO and advanced biofuels beyond 2035, making them 
a decarbonisation solution only for those sectors where electrification is challenging, as aviation and maritime. 
Differently, for heavy duty vehicles, electrification is not mandatory and 90% GHG reduction by 2040 is required 
(European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  the  European  Union,  2023e).  In  the  recent  report  of  Mario  Draghi 
(Draghi, 2024) on the future of the European competitiveness, it has been reported that alternative fuels can 
play a role to decarbonize the road sector to compensate for the slow market uptake of electric vehicles, in 
particular in some countries or areas where electrification is more challenging.  

1.3  Methodology and Data Sources 

This document summarizes the state-of-the-art, ongoing and future initiatives that regard RFNBO production, 
using  hydrogen  from  renewable  energy  and  non-biological  CO2  (or  N2)  captured  from  industrial  off-gases, 
biological sources as biomethane supply chain, flue gases and DAC technologies.  

The main information sources consist in scientific publications, knowledge gained through the JRC’s work on 
this topic, material from international institutions (IEA, IRENA, etc.), and previous CETO and LCEO (Low-Carbon 
Energy  Observatory)  reports.  Hydrogen  production  and  carbon  capture  &  storage/utilization  are  outside  the 
scope of this report but are considered from the point of view of their use as feedstock providers to produce 
RFNBO.  

10 

The  analysis  focuses  initially  on  the  currently  available  conversion  technologies,  which  have  technological 
readiness levels (TRLs) approaching commercial opportunities, but due to the emerging nature of these fuel 
production  pathways,  it  was  found  that  most  development  is  happening  at  lower  TRLs.  The  information  on 
knowledge  gained  through  EU-co-funded  research  projects  has  been  collected  from  the  CORDIS  and  the 
COMPASS tool websites and the project’s websites where available. Relevant keywords have been used to define 
proper queries in the tools, in order to identify projects, under the Horizon 2020 (H2020) and Horizon Europe 
programmes.  Further  analysis,  to  describe  objectives  and  main  achievements  was  conducted,  to  define  the 
projects impact on the technology development. A search was carried out for relevant national projects and 
SET-Plan ‘flagship projects/activities’, provided by the Set4Bio initiative - working group 8 - on Bioenergy and 
Renewable Fuels for Sustainable Transport’ and have been included in the analysis. Most of the projects under 
analysis are on-going and therefore the assessment of their impact is limited to the available deliverables. Full 
value  chains  analyses  cannot  be  performed  so  far,  since  RFNBO  market  penetration  is  still  far  from  the 
commercial  activities.  However,  some  highlights  from  recent  studies  providing  forecasts  towards  2030  and 
beyond, are discussed.  

11 

 
 
 
2  Technology status and development trends  

2.1  Technology readiness level 

The supply chain of RFNBO (also called electrofuels (e-fuels), Power-to-Gas (PtG) and Power-to-Liquid (PtL) 
when  not-necessarily  produced  by  renewable  electricity)  is generally  associated  to  several  conversion  steps 
starting  from  renewable  electricity  and  non-biological  carbon  or  nitrogen  sources  (generally  CO2  or  N2). 
According to their definition, RFNBO can also derive from hydrogen produced from other non-biological sources 
(still at very low TRL) as solar power, microbial electrolysis cells or artificial photosynthesis. On the other hand, 
the  CO2  recovery  is  also  referred  to  Carbon  Capture  and  Utilization  (CCU)  value  chains,  meaning  that  the 
recovered carbon is incorporated into either a fuel, or for other scopes.  

Several  routes are  available  for  the  production  of  RFNBO,  consisting  in  a  series of  technological  steps  that 
include (a) hydrogen production; (b) carbon capture from various sources or nitrogen separation from air, and 
(c) chemical fuel synthesis through several conversion steps in which hydrogen is reacted with carbon dioxide 
or nitrogen to produce methane, ammonia, methanol or hydrocarbons (gasoline, diesel or kerosene), as shown 
in Figure 2, followed by cleaning and purification steps. Some fuels as alcohols or paraffins may be further 
refined by ATJ (Alcohol-to-Jet) and isomerization respectively, to meet the quality requirements of refined fuels 
as SAF.  

The present report focuses on the second stage of conversion, assuming both hydrogen and CO2/N2 as feedstock 
for production of hydrocarbons, ammonia or alcohol fuels. The production of carbon-based fuels starts with a 
gas shift reaction followed by other specific reactions depending on the fuels required.  In the case of production 
of methanol, CO2 and H2 can be reacted directly through the methanol synthesis, while for other products such 
as methane and Fischer-Tropsch (FT) hydrocarbons, a reverse water gas shift reaction is needed to convert CO2 
to CO, prior to the catalytic synthesis process where the products are formed, see Figure 2. 

Figure 2. Elaboration of the investigated pathways. 

Source: JRC Elaboration 

The TRL evaluation considers the processing steps afterwards the hydrogen production and CCUS processes (in 
which hydrogen assumes the role of intermediate energy carrier). According to  the assessments of IEA (AMF 
Annex 58 and IEA Bioenergy Task 41, 2020; International Energy Agency (IEA), 2024), the average TRL of RFNBO 

12 

 
 
conversion pathways is around 6-7, but technologies included in commercial fossil-based supply chains have 
high values (for example the chemical industry producing ammonia and alcohols).  

2.1.1  Hydrogen production 

Hydrogen can be produced via several production pathways including thermochemical processing of fossil or 
biomass resources, biological processes and water electrolysis. Most of the hydrogen produced today stems 
from fossil feedstocks via steam reforming of natural gas, partial oxidation of methane and coal gasification. 
Global hydrogen demand of 90 Mt in 2020 was responsible for 900 Mt of direct CO2 emissions (International 
Energy  Agency  (IEA),  2021a).  A  brief  description  of  the  most  relevant  technologies  producing  hydrogen  is 
provided in this section, with the scope to briefly investigate renewable hydrogen from non-biological sources 
towards RFNBO production. This report does not investigate bio-hydrogen based pathways, which have been 
described by the some authors of this report in a specific peer-reviewed paper (Buffi, Prussi and Scarlat, 2022). 

2.1.1.1  Electrolysis 

The  process  of  electrolysis  supplied  by  electricity  and  water  offers  multiple  options,  both  considering 
low‑temperature  (Alkaline  Electrolysis  –  AEL,  and  Polymer  Electrolyte  Membrane  Electrolysis  –  PEMEL)  and 
high‑temperature processes (Solid Oxide Electrolysis – SOEL and Molten Carbonate Electrolyser Cells - MCEC)  
(Dincer and Acar, 2015). Electrolysers are composed of several cells arranged in “cell stack” modules that can 
then  be  multiplied  to  reach  the  desired  output  capacity.  The  technologies  vary  with  respect  to  efficiency, 
investment  and  maintenance  costs,  durability  and  lifespan,  capacity,  and  flexibility  (Yue  et  al.,  2021).  The 
hydrogen  produced  is  then  compressed  or  liquefied  for  storage  or  direct  use.  The  production  by  means  of 
alkaline  electrolysers has been  consolidated  for  more  than  a  century  and  is a  fully  commercial  technology. 
Another technology that has more recently been introduced is the PEMEL, which is now competing with alkaline 
electrolysers.  The  high  temperature  processes  are  still  under  development,  but  they  have  the  potential  to 
achieve higher conversion rates. 

Electrolysers’ installations are going to be built above some MW in capacity, even considering that the current 
hydrogen demand is still limited. However, the increasing production of renewable electricity through wind and 
solar power will make possible the production of larger electrolysers capacity beyond 1 GW, as reported by IEA 
(International Energy Agency (IEA), 2021b, 2023).  

2.1.1.2  Artificial photosynthesis 

Artificial photosynthesis is the chemical transformation of sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide into high-energy-
rich fuels (Mi and Sick, 2020). Usually there is a light-reaction side, where sunlight is used, and a dark-reaction 
side. There are two ways to perform the process. The first uses a multi-junction semiconductor for the light-
reaction  side,  where  water  splits  to  oxygen  and  hydrogen  ions  in  the  presence  of  sunlight.  Electrons  and 
hydrogen ions move to the dark-reaction side, where gold nano-catalysts are used. Then, the hydrogen ion and 
CO2 change to carbon monoxide and water. Efficiency of conversion is about 1.5%. Another method is to use a 
gallium nitride semiconductor for the light-reaction side and to use a metallic catalyst, typically copper, for the 
dark-reaction side. In the light-reaction side, water becomes oxygen and hydrogen ions with sunlight, and CO2 
becomes methane in the dark-reaction side. The conversion rate of this process is about 0.2%. Even though the 
conversion  rate  is  getting  higher,  there  is  a  thermodynamic  limit  set  at  10%  to  scale  up  the  process  to 
commercial level (Mi and Sick, 2020). Another process of interest is the photo biological water splitting, which 
uses  microorganisms  to  convert  solar  energy  into  hydrogen.  Microorganisms,  such  as  green  microalgae  or 
cyanobacteria,  absorb  sunlight  to  split  water  through  direct  photolysis  routes.  Despite  the  low  conversion 
efficiencies (less than 2% (Nagy et al., 2018)) and long conversion times, many EU projects have been developed 
in the last years to test this process at pilot scale (Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH (LBST) and Hinicio S.A., 
2015). The current TRL of this technology is about 3-4 (Walczak, Hutchins and Dornfeld, 2014). 

13 

2.1.1.3  Solar powered derived hydrogen 

The thermolysis process can be used efficiently to produce hydrogen using solar−thermal energy. An analysis 
of this topic is provided in the CETO report on solar fuels (Taylor, Tattini and Diaz Rincon, 2023). Many studies 
have  been  done  considering  various  materials  and  catalysts,  and  the  last  findings  suggested  that  a  low-
temperature  cycle  with  abundant  and  low-cost  materials  should  be  selected  for  large-scale  commercial 
applications (Dutta, 2021). The process uses metals as Zn or Ti to split hydrogen from water and producing a 
metal-oxide. A recent LCA studies (Sadeghi, Ghandehariun and Rosen, 2020) suggested that today hydrogen 
from solar thermal separation is environmentally attractive, but it cannot still compete economically with other 
solutions (i.e. SMR, electrolysis). The current TRL of this technology is about 2-4 (Boretti, 2021). 

2.1.1.4  Microbial electrolysis cells 

A microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) is when electrochemically active bacteria oxidize organic matter and generate 
CO2, electrons and protons. The bacteria transfer the electrons to the anode, and the protons are released to 
the solution. Therefore, the electrons flow through a wire to a cathode and combine with the free protons in 
solution. In order to produce  hydrogen at the cathode due to protons and electrons exchange, MEC  reactors 
require an externally supplied voltage (⩾0.2 V) under a biologically assisted condition (pH = 7, Temperature 
about 30 °C, and 101320 Pa) (Boretti, 2021). This is done by the input of a voltage via a power supply. However, 
MECs  require  relatively  low  energy  input  (0.2–0.8  V)  compared  to  typical  water  electrolysis  (1.23–1.8  V). 
Schematic diagram of two-chamber MEC is reported here below. 

Figure 3. Scheme of MEC operation starting from organic matter to electricity production (Kadier et al., 2014) 

Source: Kadier er et al, 2014 

As  regards  the  techno-economic  assessment,  the  investments  associated  with  microbial  electrochemical 
systems are higher than that of the conventional technologies. Considering the current state-of-the-art, the TRL 
is about 5 (Dange et al., 2021). However, some LCA studies already modelled the environmental impact and 
sustainability assessment for such systems, which may be potentially much lower than their fossil counterparts 
(Manish and Banerjee, 2008; Dai et al., 2016; Mehmeti et al., 2018; Borole and Greig, 2019; Chen et al., 2019). 

2.1.2  Carbon capture  

The production of e-fuels requires CO2 (except for ammonia), which can be obtained from various sources such 
as combustion gases (from both bio or fossil fuels), industrial processes (e.g. off gases), biogenic CO2 (e.g. from 
ethanol fermentation, biomethane upgrading) and CO2 captured directly from the air (Madejski et al., 2022).  

14 

 
 
 
Carbon  capture  and  utilisation  (CCU)  is  considered  an  important  CO2  mitigation  strategy  to  support  and 
complement  carbon  capture  and  storage  (CCS)  objectives  for  the  abatement  and  sequestration  of  CO2.  It 
represents various pathways that use CO2 as a feedstock in process systems or otherwise for the generation of 
value-added commodities (Dange et al., 2021). The main carbon capture technologies include post-combustion 
carbon dioxide capture (chemical absorption, physical absorption (Selexol, Rectisol), solid adsorption, membrane 
filtration and cryogenic processes) or Direct Air Capture (DAC). These technologies differ in many aspects such 
as the  capture  method  (chemical  or physical  absorption,  membrane  separation,  etc.),  the  regeneration  step, 
temperature and pressure and, most importantly, the type of energy demand (electricity or/and heat). Several 
carbon  dioxide  capture  technologies  are  already  available  at  commercial  level  (TRL  9),  including  absorption 
using amine solvents, physical solvents (Selexol, Rectisol), Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA), or gas separation 
membranes, since their use has been already consolidated in other sectors.  More detailed analysis on this topic 
can be found on CETO CCUS report (Martinez Castilla et al., 2024). Specific data on energy consumptions and 
CO2 concentrations for different carbon capture options are available in the most recent Concawe’ report on e-
fuels (Soler et al., 2024). 

Table 2. TRL analysis for adsorption, absorption, membrane separation and chemical capture technologies 
(Carbon capture, utilisation and storage - Fuels & Technologies - IEA, 2022; Vaz, Rodrigues de Souza and Lobo 
Baeta, 2022). 

Category 

TRL 

Notes 

Adsorption 

7-9 

Mainly applied in natural gas and ethanol processes, this technology is 
responsible for CO2 capturing in large plants and has great application 
perspectives.  Its  advances  are  mainly  due  to  the  simple  operation 
attributed to it. 

Absorption 

9 

It is the most advanced technology. This is due to the research time and 
consequently its application in small and large power generation, fuel 
transformation and industrial production plants. 

Membrane separation  6-9 

Relatively new but promising technology and considered to be the most 
effective separation technology among the existing ones. Its advances 
depend on the type of gas emission source and its application. Currently, 
part of its applications is in the demonstration phase, and another part 
in  the  development  phase,  few  are  commercially  available  (from  gas 
processing technology). 

Chemical capture 

3-6 

The capture involving chemical reactions, are presented in that TRL for 
its time and research intensity. As it is relatively new, its level is justified 
by the need for large pilot scale tests. 

Source: IEA, 2022; Vas et al, 2022 

2.1.3  Nitrogen separation 

Nitrogen for ammonia synthesis is produced commonly via air separation through fractional distillation by first 
cooling air until it liquefies, then selectively distilling the components at their various boiling points. Alternate, 
lower-energy approaches to air separation include Pressure Awing Adsorption (PSA) and membrane separation 
technologies. Ammonia is a product of the chemical industry with 185 Mt production in 2020, of which 72% 
was from natural gas-based steam reforming and 26% from coal gasification (IEA 2021). 

2.1.4  Fuel synthesis: Power-to-Gas 

This section reports the only process producing gaseous fuels from hydrogen and CO2. Here following a list of 
the most common synthesis-based conversion technology, i.e. the production of e-CH4.  

15 

 
2.1.4.1  e-CH4 (methanation with renewable hydrogen and CO2) 

Methanation is the easiest reaction to produce a hydrocarbon from hydrogen and CO, formerly CO2. The general 
reaction is reported here below: 

CO2 + 4 H2 => CH4 + 2 H2O (where ΔHR= - 165 kJ for steam; - 253 kJ for water (at 100 °C, 1 bar). 

Methanation  is  a  thermochemical  process  performed  at  elevated  temperatures  and  pressures,  using  noble 
metals-based catalysts. The resulting methane could then be supplied as a substitute for natural gas through 
the gas grid, as compressed gas or as liquefied gas. The overall reaction (named Sabatier) is exothermic and 
shifts the equilibrium to the products at lower temperatures, hence the reactors need a heat removal system 
to  work  optimally  (Ghaib,  Nitz  and  Ben-Fares,  2016).  The  process  can  be  driven  by  biological  or  chemical 
systems, but since the biological process is slower and less developed, this report is focused on the chemical 
route. At higher pressures, the process shows higher methane yields but can also produce more by-products 
that can be problematic for the system (e.g. a promotion of charring reaction producing carbon deposits that 
generate fouling) or other hydrocarbons that lower the purity of the final product. The formation of by-products 
depends strongly on the catalyst. An exhaustive review of the most common catalysts has been provided by 
Tan  et  al  (Tan  et  al.,  2022).  Nickel-based  catalysts  are  the  most  widely  used  for  their  low  price  and  high 
conversion rate. The reactors are generally fixed bed reactors, and typical thermodynamic parameters are 8 bar 
and  180-350  °C  of  temperature  (Lindorfer  et  al.,  2019),  but  also,  higher  conditions  can  be  reached.  The 
theoretical process efficiency of conversion of hydrogen energy to the final product is 78% (Gorre, Ortloff and 
van  Leeuwen,  2019),  but  from  electricity  to  methane,  the  overall  efficiency  decreases  depending  on  the 
electrolysers efficiency. Some key performance indicators, including TRL, have been  reported by Jarvis et al 
(Jarvis and Samsatli, 2018). 

Table 3. Main KPIs for the Sabatier’ reaction for methanation. 

Indicator/measure 

Technical  

TRL 

Value 

8-9 

Typical operating temperature (°C) 

250-550 

Typical operating pressure (bar) 

1-100 

Typical overall CO2 conversion (%) 

70-90 

Plant lifetime (years) 

Economics 

Fuel price (Euro/tfuel) 

Energy 

Electricity usage (MWh/tfuel) 

20 

320 

55.6 (hydrogen production, the electricity for 
the methanation is supposed to be supplied 
by an internal turbine) 

Net CO2 utilization (t/tfuel) 

3 

Source: (Jarvis and Samsatli, 2018; Chauvy et al., 2020) 

Concawe (Soler et al., 2022, 2024) proposed a full techno-economic assessment of e-fuels, including synthetic 
methane. The most relevant data are reported in Table 4. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4. Technical parameters methanation using renewable Hydrogen 

Cradle-to-grave GHG emission 

Years 

2020 

gCO2eq/MJ 

11.7 

Production input and output 

2030 

10.7 

2050 

11.0 

Input 

H2 

CO2 

Power 

Heat 

Amount 

0.50 kg/kg fuel 

Up to 3.00 kg/kg fuel 

1.15 MJ/kg fuel 

10.8  MJ/kg 
fuel 

Output 

Methane 

Water 

CO2 (emission) 

Amount 

1.00 kg 

2.25 kg/kg fuel 

0.25 kg/kg fuel 

Synthesis production plant input and output 

Note: Methanation plant with a capacity of 1368 MW based on the LHV 

Input 

H2 

CO2 

Amount 

1.198 MJ/MJCH4, LHV 

0.06 MJ/MJCH4, LHV 

Electricity 

0.0229 
LHV 

MJ/MJCH4, 

Output 

Methane 

Amount 

1.000 MJ 

Heat (250-300℃) 

0.0720 MJ/MJCH4, LHV 

Source: Concawe 2022; Concawe 2024 

Almost all power-to-methane plants are installed in the EU. According to LBST (Weindorf et al., 2019), in late 
2018, 11 power-to-methane plants with a capacity of about 7 MW of CH4 were in operation in the EU. More 
recently,  EBA  (European  Biogas  Association  (EBA),  2024)  reported  that  by  the  end  of  2023,  operational  e-
methane production plants were 35, with the largest concentration in Germany. Current production capacity is 
449 GWh/year, and by 2027, it is expected to reach almost 3,000 GWh/year. Including plants under construction, 
planned, and announced plants the expected number of plants by 2027 is estimated at 55. In most of the plants 
the CO2 is derived from biogas upgrading or CO2 in biogas streams via direct methanation using the CO2 fraction 
from biogas. However, there are a growing number of projects using direct air capture (DAC) of CO2.  

2.1.5  Fuel synthesis: Power-to-Liquid 

This section reports the processes producing liquid fuels from hydrogen and  CO2/N2. Some fuels can also be 
intended  as  chemicals,  such  as  ammonia  and  methanol.  Here  following  a  description  of  the  most  common 
synthesis-based conversion technologies, which can be also used to produce advanced biofuels, when CO and 
H2 derive from biomass or other organic matter from gasification processes. 

2.1.5.1  e-NH3 (ammonia) from renewable electricity via Haber Bosch process  

Ammonia  is the  simplest  hydride  of  nitrogen  (NH3), and  is a  colourless  gas  with  a  strong  smell, commonly 
associated with degradation of organic matter. Ammonia has a very low boiling point (-33.5°C) so quickly turns 
to a gas when exposed to air (Soler and Yugo, 2020; IRENA and AEA, 2022). Its calorific value is significantly 

17 

lower than that of most conventional hydrocarbon fuels. Ammonia has many applications as chemicals, but 
only recently has been studied also as fuel (Valera-Medina et al., 2021). 

Ammonia has been formerly used as refrigerant since almost two centuries, and as a feedstock for nitrogen 
fertilizers for a century. NH3 can be also combusted in ICEs (Internal Combustion Engines) and turbines, leading 
to a higher fraction of NOx compared to carbon-based fuels (Salmon and Bañares-Alcántara, 2021), but recent 
developments in the combustion chambers design and oxygen distribution, allowed to reduce to very low level 
such emissions (Guteša Božo et al., 2019; Elbaz et al., 2022). The current challenge in ammonia-based engines 
is to reduce fuel-NOx and maintain low levels of thermal-NOx (Jiang et al., 2024). 

Ammonia is produced in commercial plants through the Haber-Bosch process based on a reaction of nitrogen 
with hydrogen using a metal catalyst under high temperatures and pressures. The world’s first ammonia plant 
was commissioned in 1913 by BASF in Oppau, Germany (Rouwenhorst, Travis and Lefferts, 2022).  

Ammonia is used as a feedstock for nitrogen fertilizers, can be used as a hydrogen carrier and as a fuel for 
transport and also directly in fuel cells. It is worth mentioning that many innovative applications in fuels cells 
are currently under development (Jeerh, Zhang and Tao, 2021). E-ammonia as a fuel has the advantage of not 
generating any CO2 when used and can therefore be attractive if CO2 exhaust emissions are limited. A very 
interesting and promising application consists in the ammonia use in the maritime sector, that can be used in 
internal combustion engines with small modifications and can also be used directly in fuel cells  (Al-Aboosi et 
al., 2021). However, new standards as regards its safety use and distribution should be developed (International 
Energy  Agency  (IEA),  2024),  as  well  as  much  ship  equipment  should  be  re-designed  (e.g.  fuel  storage,  fuel 
injection, engine emissions after treatment) . Thus, ammonia use as fuel is still at very low TRL. Nevertheless, 
many engine manufacturers and shipbuilders are working on this fuel and showing great interest in its potential 
for decarbonisation (Klüssmann et al., 2020; Imhoff, Gkantonas and Mastorakos, 2021).  

Today’s modern plants still retain the same basic configuration as in the past, reacting to a hydrogen-nitrogen 
mixture on an iron catalyst at elevated temperature in the range 400-500°C and operating pressures above 
100  bar  (Rouwenhorst,  Travis and  Lefferts,  2022).  The  ammonia  synthesis is a  downstream process of  the 
hydrogen production, where most of the electricity (95%) is used for hydrogen production, while a small amount 
is needed to separate nitrogen gas from air and to separate the gas mixture for the ammonia synthesis loop. 
No direct CO2 emissions are produced as a result of the HB process, and zero-emission ammonia production is 
possible if the used electricity is essentially carbon-free. Steam for high temperature electrolysers is generated 
by  recovering  heat  from  the  ammonia  synthesis  to  boost  the  overall  integrated-process  efficiency.  Higher 
efficiency, combined with a prospect of lower CAPEX, could improve the economics of the process, though the 
technology is presently in the development phase and is therefore limited to small scales.  

Table 5. Electricity and hydrogen demand in the production of ammonia and methanol. 

Source: (Ram et al., 2020) 

In late 2022, (Concawe, 2022) proposed a full techno-economic assessment of e-fuels, later updated in 2024 
(Soler et al., 2024), including synthetic ammonia, for which the most relevant data are reported in Table 6. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 6. Technical parameters e-ammonia production 

Production input and output 

Input 

H2 

N2 

Power 

Amount 

0.178 kg/kgNH3 

0.822 kg/kgNH3 

2.16 MJ/kgNH3 

Output 

Ammonia 

Amount 

1.00 kg 

Cradle-to-grave GHG emission 

Heat 

2.18 MJ/kgNH3 

Years 

2020 

gCO2eq/MJ 

11.4 

2030 

11.2 

2050 

9.2 

Source: Concawe 2022, Concawe 2024 

It  is  worth  reporting  also  that  Sphera  recently  published  a  full-LCA  study  of  ammonia  as  maritime  fuels 
(Schuller, Bopp and Rapp, 2024), including a detailed LCI to gather specific information for further LCA studies. 

2.1.5.2  e-methanol via methanolysis  

Methanol is the simplest alcohol (CH3OH), liquid at ambient temperature and atmospheric pressure, but with a 
high volatility. Differently than ethanol, it is toxic and dangerous for human health even in small quantities 
(Verhelst et al., 2019). It can be produced in different ways, both from fossil sources as well as from biomass 
(Pirola, Bozzano and Manenti, 2018; IRENA and Methanol Institute, 2021). Moreover, hydrogen can be converted 
to methanol via synthesis directly with CO2, without requirement of reverse water gas shift (as for methane), 
according to the methanolysis as follows: 

CO2 + 3 H2 => CH3 OH + H2O 

The reaction is exothermal, generally carried out at a temperature of 240 to 270°C and a pressure of 8 MPa, 
but depending on the catalysts used, it can be performed at different thermodynamic conditions (Guil-López et 
al., 2019). As regards physical properties, methanol has just half of the (volumetric) energy density of gasoline 
(based on the lower heating value (LHV)).  

Summarizing, 2 litres of methanol contain about the same energy contained in one litre of gasoline, making its 
use as fuel more challenging than gasoline or diesel. Its density corresponds to the density of most other liquid 
fuels, but with a lower boiling point at 64.7°C (at atmospheric pressure conditions).  

Methanol produced through methanol synthesis could be used directly as a transport fuel in low blends with 
petrol or used for further chemical processing to drop-in fuels through the methanol route following sequential 
processes of olefin synthesis, oligomerisation and hydrotreating. Depending on process conditions and catalysts 
type, the process can lead to different products. 

When used as fuel, methanol has a high-octane rating, which theoretically would allow higher pressure ratio in 
spark-ignition  engines (making  it  more  efficient  than  gasoline),  but  low  cetane  number,  so  less  suitable  for 
diesel engines. Under the Fuel Quality Directive, European fuels standard EN228 limits on the oxygen content 
of gasoline which then restrict the amount of methanol to a maximum of 3% vol for EU transport fuels, but in 
China is also used at M85 (a mixture of 85 vol.% methanol and 15 vol.% gasoline) or M100 (pure methanol) in 
commercial blends for dedicated spark-ignited combustion engines of light-duty vehicles (Schorn et al., 2021). 
Moreover, methanol could be also used as blending components for maritime fuels  (Svanberg et al., 2018), 
thus, several oceangoing vessels are already equipped with dual fuel, two-stroke engines, which can operate 
also with the traditional maritime fuels and methanol blends.  

19 

For this scope, the international organization developing the standards’ guidelines (ISO) is currently developing 
a standard for methyl/ethyl alcohols as a marine fuel under the reference ISO/AWI 6583 (ISO, 2023). However, 
the low density and the poor miscibility into the commercial fuel blends, make its use more suitable for other 
applications.  For  this  scope,  e-fuels  technologies  should  not  be  intended  only  to  produce  e-fuels,  but  also 
chemicals that could be of high interest for industry. For instance, biodiesel production today uses fossil-derived 
methanol that has a strong impact on its carbon footprint  (Sebos, 2022); therefore, adding a full renewable 
reagent as e-methanol at the transesterification reaction, the same biofuel comes out with strongly reduced 
environmental impact. Methanol is also largely used in the chemical industry as a solvent or as initial feedstock 
for alcohols isomers (DME, ETBE) and ethers.  

In conclusion, this pathway is already at full commercial level (TRL 9 (Schorn et al., 2021) for fossil-based 
methanol) and well-established for many years  (Dieterich et al., 2020)), so, the only market barriers to fully 
substitute the fossil-based methanol are based only on H2 and CO2 supply and economy (Weindorf et al., 
2019; Yugo and Soler, 2019). 

Table 7. Main technical specifications and KPIs for the hydrogenation to methanol. 

Indicator/measure 

Value 

Technical  

TRL 

6-7 (referring to the whole 
supply chain of RFNBO) 

Typical operating temperature (°C) 

225 

Typical operating pressure (bar) 

50 

Typical overall CO2 conversion (%) 

93.85 

Plant lifetime (years) 

Economic 

Fuel price (Euro/tfuel) 

Environmental 

Electricity usage (MWh/tfuel) 

Net CO2 utilization (t/tfuel) 

Total water use (t/tfuel) 

20 

360 

0.4 

1.46 

26.4 

Source: (Pérez-fortes and Tzimas, 2016; Jarvis and Samsatli, 2018) 

In late 2022, proposed a full techno-economic assessment of e-fuels, later updated in 2024 (Soler et al., 2024), 
including e-methanol, for which the most relevant data are reported in Table 8. The same study also calculated 
the cradle-to-grave GHG emissions, which showed an increasing trend over the time due to the use of Direct 
Air Capture for CO2 supply. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 8. Technical parameters e-methanol production (for industrial production). 

Production input and output 

Input 

H2 

CO2 

Power 

Heat 

Amount 

0.193 kg/kg fuel 

1.40 kg/kg fuel 

1.07 MJ/kg fuel 

1.72  MJ/kg 
fuel 

Output 

Methanol 

Amount 

1.00 kg 

Synthesis production plant input and output 

Water 

0.59 kg/kg fuel 

Note: methanol synthesis plant including compressors and methanol purification with a capacity of 1368 
MW based on the LHV 

Input 

H2 

CO2 

Electricity 

Amount 

1.161 MJ/MJCH3OH, LHV 

0.0702 MJ/MJCH3OH, LHV 

0.0499 MJ/MJCH3IH, LHV 

Output 

Methanol 

Amount 

1.000 MJ 

Cradle-to-grave GHG emission 

Heat (250-300℃) 

0.0720 MJ/MJCH3OH, LHV 

Years 

2020 

gCO2eq/MJ 

10.6 

2030 

10.4 

2050 

11.5 

Source: Concawe 2022, Concawe 2024 

2.1.5.3  e-diesel, e-kerosene and e-gasoline via Fischer-Tropsch route 

Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) synthesis is a technology that has a long history of production of gasoline and diesel from 
coal. In the last 20 years great interest has been generated in using this relatively well-established technology 
downstream to other bio- or non bio-conversion pathways producing syngas (Steynberg and Dry, 2004). This 
process  has  been  originally  developed  to  overcome  the  lack  of  petroleum  by  means  of  the  synthesis  of 
Germany’s abundant coal supplies in the beginning of the 20th century (Mahmoudi et al., 2017). Afterwards the 
First World War, Germany and Britain were the most successful and pioneering in developing the generation of 
liquid synthetic hydrocarbons through F-T technology. This solution allowed up to the end of the Second World 
War to supply large quantities of liquid fuels for military scopes, in particular on the EU territory.  

FT synthesis is an alternative route for producing drop-in hydrocarbon fuels (gasoline, diesel, kerosene) from 
syngas (hydrogen and  carbon monoxide) through a  catalytic synthesis process. Carbon monoxide for the FT 
reaction can be produced by the reverse water-gas-shift reaction from carbon dioxide and hydrogen. The FT 
products  are  upgraded  to  lighter  hydrocarbons  (diesel  or  kerosene)  by  hydrocracking,  isomerization,  and 
distillation. 

Today the Fischer-Tropsch pathway to synthetic, liquid hydrocarbons is commonly used in biomass-to-liquid 
(BtL), gas-to-liquid (GtL) and coal-to-liquid (CtL) processes (Schmidt and Weindorf, 2016), where an upstream 
gasification  process  produces  gases  mainly  composed  by  CO  and  H2  to  be  processed  into  the  FT-reactors. 

21 

 
 
 
Generally, such gases must be cleaned by tars and other contaminants to produce a high purity syngas to run 
the desired reactions as follows (Basu, 2018):  

Paraffins: nCO + (2n + 1)H2 ⇌ CnH2n+2 + nH2O 

ΔH = n(−146.0) kJ mol−1 

Olefins: nCO + (2n)H2 ⇌ CnH2n + nH2O  

Alcohols: nCO + (2n)H2 ⇌ CnH2n+1 OH + (n − 1)H2O  

In some cases, additional hydrogen may be required depending on the reaction stoichiometry as well as on the 
type of catalysts used (Jahangiri et al., 2014), in particular to produce e-SAF, which requires additional hydrogen 
for  the  isomerization  (Colelli  et  al.,  2023;  Bube  et  al.,  2024).  In  synthesis  pathways  like  BtL  and  CtL,  CO  is 
provided  from  the  gasification  of  biomass and  coal  respectively.  In  the  FT-PtL  case,  CO2 from  concentrated 
sources or extracted by DAC technologies is used as carbon source, where it is converted to CO via an inverse 
CO-shift reaction using the reverse water gas shift process. Upgrading the FT-derived crude product to specific 
classes of liquid hydrocarbons requires specific downstream processes such as hydrocracking, isomerization, 
and distillation. These processes are already commercially used at large scale in oil refineries today, as well as 
in CtL and GtL plants, so this solution could be easily integrated into a biorefinery concept. The share of products 
from the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis ranges from light naphtha to heavy diesel components, but further reactions 
of oligomerization and isomerization can be applied to meet the required fuel standards (Schmidt and Weindorf, 
2016). For instance, Fischer-Tropsch synthetic paraffinic kerosene is an ASTM approved pathway which can be 
blended up to 50% (in volume) into the commercial jet fuel blend (Chiaramonti, 2019). 

As regards e-fuel production, there is already the possibility to perform direct FT-fuel synthesis from CO2-based 
feed gas, but this pathway is still at a very early stage of development (requiring further catalyst developments 
and first lab scale demonstration). On the other hand, several PtFT-fuels demo plants that include a shift from 
CO2 to CO have been operated successfully and further larger-scale plants have been announced (BEST and IEA 
Bioenergy Task 39, 2022). For the short-term future this will remain the dominant process design for FT-based 
PtL plants (Dieterich et al., 2020). According to Concawe (Yugo and Soler, 2019), the mass balance to produce 
1 litre of liquid e-fuel is estimated at 3.7–4.5 litres of water, 82–99 MJ of renewable electricity and 2.9–3.6 kg 
of CO2. 

According to CONCAWE report (Concawe, 2022), later updated in 2024 (Soler et al., 2024), 11.7 g of hydrogen, 
88 g of CO2 and 0.0441 MJ of electricity are needed to produce 23.2 g of e-Diesel (i.e. 1 MJ) and 0.2139 MJ of 
heat.  The  same  study  also  calculated  the  carbon  intensity  of  FT-kerosene  and  diesel,  which  showed  an 
increasing trend of emissions (from 12.5 to 12.8 gCO2eq/MJ for FT kerosene between 2020 and 2050) because 
of the use of Direct Air Capture for CO2 supply. Differently, other GHG assessment studies, such as the one 
proposed by LBST (Schmidt et al., 2023) show a decreasing carbon intensity of PtL-SAF, up to few grams per 
MJ fuel by 2050. 

Table 9. Main KPIs for the Fischer-Tropsch’ reaction for liquid fuels production (Jarvis and Samsatli, 2018). 

Indicator/measure 

Technical  

TRL 

Value 

5-9 

Typical operating temperature (°C)  200-350 

Typical operating pressure (bar) 

20-40 

Typical overall CO2 conversion (%)  51.5 

Plant lifetime (years) 

20 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Economic 

Fuel price (Euro/tfuel) 

1375 

Environmental 

Electricity usage (MWh/tfuel) 

Net CO2 utilization (t/tfuel) 

Source: Jarvis and Samsatli, 2018 

6.8 

2.6 

As regards the current EU legislation, it is worth noting that, depending on the initial energy and carbon sources, 
the  renewable  fuels  from  FT-process  can  belong  to  different  RED  II  categories.  For  instance,  biomass 
gasification leads to advance biofuels, non-recyclable wastes gasification/pyrolysis or the recovery of industrial 
off-gases lead to RCFs, and the generic CO2, derived by both bio- and fossil-source reacted with hydrogen from 
renewable electricity, leads to RFNBO. Moreover, if the overall feedstock is a mix between non-bio renewable 
hydrogen,  bio-  and  non-bio  renewable  carbon,  the  final  fuel  share  will  belong  to  the  different  categories 
previously mentioned in a proportional fraction (on energy basis) depending on its origin.  

It  is  worth  to  mention  that  Norsk  e-Fuel  is  commissioning  a  demo  plant  producing  FT-synthesis  liquid 
hydrocarbons supplied by CO2 from DAC and hydrogen from SOEC, that will be gradually scaled to produce 25 
million litres within 2026 (Our Technology | Norsk e-Fuel, 2022). Here the expected TRL is about 7-8, which is 
relevantly  increased  from  the  recent  updated  figures  from  LBST  (TRL  6  for  both  low/high  temperature 
electrolysis) (Weindorf et al., 2019). According to the Transport and Environment observatory of e-kerosene 
(Transport & Environment, 2024b), 45 e-kerosene projects in the EEA (Economic European Area), including 25 
large-scale industrial projects and 20 smaller pilot projects. The large-scale projects should deliver 1.7 Mt of e-
kerosene  by  2030.  According  to  an  estimation  of  EASA  (European  Union  Aviation  Safety  Agency,  2024)  to 
achieve 5% of SAF by 2030 for all flights departing from EU airports, about 2.3 Mt of SAF would be required. 

Figure 4. FT-fuels production from electricity and carbon capture (Alfonso García de las Heras, 2021). 

Source: Heras (Concawe), 2018 

2.1.5.4  e-diesel, e-kerosene and e-gasoline via Methanol route 

An alternative conversion route to FT-process which directly produces hydrocarbons is through further chemical 
reactions starting from methanol. The  pathway is built on industrially proven processes which have already 
been used for decades in various large-scale applications (Yarulina et al., 2018), such as natural gas reforming 
and  synthesis  to  methanol  (including  methanol-to-gasoline  conversion  in  some  cases).  Conversion  and 
upgrading  of  methanol  to  liquid  hydrocarbons includes several  process  steps,  notably  DME  synthesis,  olefin 

23 

 
 
 
 
synthesis, oligomerization, and hydrotreating (Weindorf et al., 2019). The main reaction mechanism to produce 
paraffins is reported here below. 

Syndiesel production from methanol as DME-Synthesis: 2 CH3OH => CH3-O-CH3 + H2O 

Olefin synthesis: CH3-O-CH3 => (CH2)2 + 2 H2O 

Oligomerization: 0.5 n (CH2)2 => CnH2n 

Hydrogenation: CnH2n + H2 =>CnH2n+2 

Depending on process conditions and catalysts type, the process can lead to different products (Atsbha et al., 
2021). Many technologies have been studied and demonstrated so far (Keil, 1999), but this process does not 
find a market collocation yet.   

Gasoline and diesel produced via the methanol pathway would be compatible to conventional commercial fuel 
blends used for road transports, but specific standards setting their quality have not been developed so far. 
Moreover,  neither jet  fuel  has yet  been  produced  via  the  methanol  pathway,  and  technical  approval  of  this 
pathway according to ASTM D7566 is still pending (Schmidt et al., 2018).  

Summarizing,  the  rationale  behind  this  concept  lays  on  the  fact  that  market  demand  can  rapidly  change, 
specifically  during  the  last  years  after  Covid-19  crisis  and  Ukrainian  war.  This  solution  has  an  enormous 
potential to cover a broader range of products with quick adaptation. Specifically, this concept would allow to 
shift methane/methanol or hydrocarbons production with a limited capital investment (CAPEX), since e-gas and 
e-liquids production affects only the 15 and 17 % of the total plant investment (Yugo and Soler, 2019).  

As regards the TRL, LBST reported that this process has TRL 6 when supplied by high temperature electrolysers, 
while 8-9 when supplied by low temperature, traditional electrolysers (Weindorf et al., 2019). First plants started 
producing hydrocarbons from fossil-derived methanol (MGT reactor of ExxonMobil), but today this technology 
is used also for plants producing gasoline from wastes-derived methanol (e.g. Primus Green Energy, Canada 
(Chakraborty,  Singh  and  Maity,  2022)  and  from  hydrogen  and  oxygen  from  electrolysis  in  a  large-scale 
methanol-to-gasoline plant (2.5 million litres of gasoline per day) based on natural gas reforming (Dieterich et 
al., 2020). 

According to CONCAWE report (Concawe, 2022), later updated in 2024 (Soler et al., 2024), for every kilogram 
of kerosene or diesel fuel produced in the methanol-to-kerosene/diesel process, 2.32 kg of methanol and 0.01 
kg of hydrogen are consumed. The process yields 1.00 kg of kerosene, produces 1.31 kg of water, consumes 
0.718 MJ of power, and generates 1.314 MJ of heat. The same study also calculated the carbon intensity of 
methanol-to-gasoline/kerosene, which showed an increasing trend of emissions (from 11.3 to 12.2 gCO2eq/MJ 
between 2020 and 2050) for the same reason of FT-kerosene. According to the analysis of Bube et al (Bube et 
al., 2024), the efficiency of this pathway is a bit higher than for kerosene compared to FT-based conversion, 
but a bit lower in terms of overall products. Therefore, the recent GHG assessment  of LBST (Schmidt et al., 
2023) did not show differences among these two pathways due to the conversion efficiency of methanol-to-
fuel, but to the combined effect of lower carbon intensity of hydrogen and higher CCU efficiency (expected by 
2050), that reduced the values up to 1.8 gCO2eq/MJ.  

2.1.5.5  e-DME and e-OME  

DME (Dimethyl ether), also known as methoxymethane, is the simplest ether (CH3-O-CH3). As potential diesel 
fuel substitute, DME has a cetane number of 55-60, which is higher than the European diesel specification EN 
590. Since the boiling point is –24.8°C, DME could be potentially used as admixture to Liquefied Petroleum Gas 
(LPG) for spark ignition engines. However, the lower heating value (LHV), its gaseous form at room temperature 
and blending walls due to its full miscibility make of its use still challenging. However, DME can be used as a 
stand-alone, clean high-efficiency compression ignition fuel, generating reduced NOx emissions and particulate 
matter.  It  can  also  be  efficiently  reformed  to  hydrogen  at  low  temperatures,  and  is  not  considered  toxic 
(Putrasari and Lim, 2022). 

DME can be synthesised from CO2 via two main routes. By Route 1 it can be synthesised through the formation 
of syngas in the reverse water gas shift reaction (RWGSR) where it is then converted to DME through direct or 

24 

indirect synthesis. Route 2 involves the synthesis of DME directly from CO2 (Styring, Dowson and Tozer, 2021). 
Both routes have been already investigated into the previous sections.  

Differently,  Oxymethylene  ethers  (OME)  are  more  complex  compounds  of  carbon,  oxygen,  and  hydrogen 
(CH3O(CH2O)nCH3). Due to their high oxygen concentration, they suppress pollutant formation in combustion. 

OMEs’ properties depend on their chain length, which has no carbon-carbon linkage and a high oxygen content 
between 42 – 48 wt.% (Soler and Yugo, 2020). Their volumetric energy density is low, there is no compatibility 
with the existing fuel infrastructure and current European diesel specifications (e.g. EN 590, EN15940). While 
for DME service in vehicles, only moderate modifications of engine and injection systems are required, OME-
powered  engines  require  significant  adaptations.  So  far  mainly  small  commercial  vehicle  fleets  (buses  and 
heavy-duty  vehicles)  have  used  DME  as  a  transport  fuel,  where  Germany  has  been  the  most  active  MS  in 
developing recent initiatives (De Falco et al., 2022). Despite the potential role of these fuels, especially in the 
heavy-duty segment, most of the publications do not consider e-DME and e-OME as part of their assessment. 
Further details these pathways can be gathered from the last Concawe report 2024 (Soler et al., 2024), where 
energy and GHG emissions assessments are available.  

2.1.5.6  Renewable jet fuel via innovative processes 

 There are also several novel, alternative processes for converting CO2 to CO, to form syngas that together with 
e-hydrogen  can  lead  to  fuels,  alcohols  or  other  compounds.  Many  companies  are  studying  such  innovative 
pathways even if they are at early stage of development, in particular to produce SAF. For instance, Topsoe 
developed eCOs™ process (i.e. electrolytic Carbon Monoxide solution), where a solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC) 
is used to reduce  CO2 to CO through the electrochemical process of electrolysis (Haldor Topsoe, 2022). Together 
with green hydrogen, CO can be then converted to other fuels. However, Topsoe recently developed  another 
specific technology to directly produce hydrocarbon, i.e. the G2LTM technology that produces paraffins from H2 
and CO2 (Topsoe, 2024).  

Another  novel  conversion  pathway,  developed  by  the  carbon  transformation  company  Twelve  and  the 
biotechnology company LanzaTech, is based on a process converting CO2 emissions into ethanol partnership 
(Green Car Congress website, 2022; renewablesnow.com,  2022). This relies on  a new  class of  CO2-reducing 
catalysts and a novel device that splits CO2 with just water and renewable electricity as inputs, and subsequently 
the LanzaTech’s small Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR) to convert CO to ethanol. This approach is highly 
scalable  and  could  ultimately  produce  ethanol  at  an  industrial  scale,  while  simultaneously  eliminating  CO 2 
emissions.    The  process  can  also  be  coupled  with  “Alcohol  to  Jet  Synthetic  Paraffinic  Kerosene”  (ATJ-SPK) 
pathway, which has been approved by ASTM D7566 (Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuel Containing 
Synthesized  Hydrocarbons)  that  sets  requirements  for  the  alternative  jet  fuels  (Geleynse  et  al.,  2018).  The 
Lanzatech’ process can also be coupled with other upstream CO sources. For instance the ATJ produced from 
ethanol  using  the  LanzaTech-PNNL  hybrid  process  (Dagle,  Dagle  and  Saavedra  Lopez,  2020;  Green  Car 
Congress, 2021), even if under ASTM review process, may be another option to add ethanol as a qualified ATJ 
feedstock for D7566 Annex A5 (Harmon et al., 2017). It is worth noting that the first ATJ commercial plant in 
US powered by the Lanzatech technology was opened at the beginning of 2024 (Energy.gov, 2024).  

There  are  also  many  other  ongoing  initiatives  which  may  be  of  high  interest  to  produce  competitive  e-SAF 
considering both novel and a combination of the previously mentioned technologies  (Küngas, 2020; Saravanan 
et al., 2021; Braun, Grimme and Oesingmann, 2024; Ozkan et al., 2024). However, the main barrier remains the 
need to produce hydrogen at low cost, together with the need to be close to CO2 sources. This is still a difficult 
combination to achieve for several reasons e.g. availability, logistics, economics, etc. 

2.2  Current Installed Capacity and Potential Production 

Most of the e-fuels facilities are still at demo-scale, as discussed in the previous sections. Only a few plants 
are currently operated in the  EU, and the overall production is a few tons of fuel per year, which is used for 

25 

 
demonstration activities (Agora Verkehrswende and PtX Hub, 2024). According to the IEA Bioenergy’ map (BEST 
and IEA  Bioenergy  Task  39,  2022)  and  the  ETIP  databases  (ETIP  Bioenergy  website, 2024), there  are  some 
existing projects (principally at small scale) that deliver e-fuels in EU, mainly funded by private companies or 
EU-funded programmes (Table 10). 

Table 10. E-fuels plants available and planned today in EU according to IEA Bioenergy and ETIP databases. 

Project 
name 

Project 
owner 

Country 

Technology 

Production 
capacity 

TRL 

Product 

NAMOSYN 
- 
OME35 plant 

TU Munich 

Germany 

E-Fuels 
Hybrids 

Biomass 

4-5 

oxymethyl
ene  ether 
3-5 
(OME35)   

Start 
year 

2021 

Exytron 
Demonstratio
nsanlage   

EXYTRON 
GmbH 

Germany  Methanation 

electrolysis 
catalytic 
methanation   

- 
and 

1 m3/h  

4-5 

SNG 

2015 

Synkero 

Netherlan
ds   

E-Fuels 
Hybrids 

Biomass 

50,000 t/y  

SAF  

2027 

Commercial 
synthetic 
kerosene 
facility 

Jupiter 1000   GRTgaz 

France 

Store&Go-
Falkenhagen  

Uniper 

Germany 

CH4 25 Nm³ 
/h 

3-4 

H2 
CH4 

and 

2019 

CH4 57 Nm³ 
/h 

3-4 

CH4 
H2 

and 

2019 

Water  electrolysis 
(alkaline  and  PEM), 
methanation,  CO2 
capture  from  flue 
gas 

water 

Alkaline 
electrolysis, 
catalytic 
methanation,  direct 
air capture of CO2 

STORE&GO 
Falkenhagen 

GEORGE 
OLAH 
RENEWABLE 
METHANOL 
PLANT 

FReSMe 
project 
(H2020) 

ALIGN-CCUS  

STORE&GO 

Germany 

Isothermic  catalytic 
honeycomb 
technology 

1,400  cubic 
meters 
of 
SNG / day 

3-4 

and 

2019 

H2 
CH4 

4000 t/year 

8 

Methanol 

2012 

Iceland 

Carbon 
recycling 
International 

water 

alkaline 
electrolysis, 
methanol  synthesis 
from  H2  and  CO2  , 
CO2 capture from a 
geothermal  power 
plant 

Swerim 

Sweden 

Electrolysis 

50  kg/h  of 
methanol 

6 

methanol 

2021 

A  consortium 
of 
31 
companies 

Germany  Methanol  synthesis 

from H2 and CO2 

50kg of DME 
per day 

4-5 

2019 

(DME), 
synthetic 
diesel 
substitute 

Sunfire  PtL  – 
Dresden 

Sunfire  PtL  – 
Dresden 

Germany 

temperature 
High 
electrolysis 
with 
SOEC,  DAC,  reverse 

180 l/day 

3-4 

bio-oil 

2014 

26 

  
  
Project 
name 

Project 
owner 

Country 

Technology 

Production 
capacity 

TRL 

Product 

Start 
year 

water  gas 
(RWGS), 
synthesis 

shift 
F-T 

GreenPower2
Jet 

Airbus, 
BP 
Lingen, BP Air, 
DLR, 
Dow, 
Hoyer Logistic, 
Easyjet, DHL 

Germany 

50 MW Electrolyser 

JET 
Fuel 
quantity N.A. 

7-8 

Hydrogen, 
Jet fuel 

2024 

Synhelion 
Solar 
Spain 

Fuels 

Synhelion 

Spain  

 Sun-to-Liquid 

500000 
litres/year 

7-8 

2025 

eKerosene, 
eGasoline, 
and 
eDiesel 

Source: (BEST and IEA Bioenergy Task 39, 2022); ETIP  B Database 

However, it is worth mentioning that other databases  report additional projects under development, as shown 
in the Annex 3, where the fuels and their projects are classified on the final use (including also projects under 
development and evaluation). Currently there is still no effective commercial production of RFNBO since the 
voluntary schemes which can certify such fuels received  a positive technical assessment only in September 
2024 (European Commission website, 2024). From now on, a rapid scale up is expected as plants strive to meet 
the stringent targets of the regulations such as ReFuelEU Aviation and FuelEU Maritime.  
According to JRC’s POTEnCIA1 modelling under the POTEnCIA CETO 2024 Scenario, a sharp increase in RFNBO 
production in the EU is foreseen (see Annex 2 for a detailed description of the scenario and of the POTEnCIA 
model). The installed capacity of RFNBO synthesis processes scales up rapidly from 2035, achieving more than 
20 GW in 2040 and almost 60 GW in 2050 (see Figure 5). Such uptake is mirrored by the RFNBO production, 
which  exceeds  40  Mtoe  in  2050  representing  almost  6%  of  energy  consumption  in  final  energy,  final  non-
energy2 and in international aviation and shipping.  

Figure 5. RFNBO installed capacity (left) and production (right) in the EU under the POTEnCIA CETO 2024 Scenario, 2025-
2050. 

*AVFCO stands for Available for Final Consumption and includes energy consumption contributions from: final energy, final non-energy and 
international aviation and shipping. 

Source: POTEnCIA model 

1 POTEnCIA (Policy Oriented Tool for Energy and Climate Change Impact Assessment) is a modelling tool that allows a robust assessment of the impact of 

different policy futures on the EU energy system developed by the JRC. Description of the model and the scenarios are given in Annex 3 
2 Final non-energy consumptions include fuels that are used as raw materials and are not consumed as fuel or transformed into another fuel 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
Besides targeting  a  gradual  decrease  in  GHG  emissions  leading  to  carbon  neutrality  in  2050,  the  POTEnCIA 
CETO  2024  Scenario  includes  specific  penetration  targets  for  RFNBO,  for  instance  those  defined  by  the 
Renewable Energy Directive or by the ReFuelEU Aviation regulation, which are properly reflected in the scenario 
results  shown.  Besides  these  levers,  the  growing  consumption  of  synthetic  fuels  as  RFNBO  in  the  different 
energy sectors is also the result of a direct competition with other alternative fuels (e.g. advanced biofuels), 
based on assumed techno-economic projections, to meet the overall GHG reduction target or  sector specific 
targets (for instance the FuelEU Maritime reduction targets for GHG intensity of energy use on vessels).  

More specifically, in aviation the consumption of e-kerosene increases progressively, reaching almost 19 Mtoe 
in 2050. For the maritime sector (including bunkers and domestic navigation), the RFNBO demand is assumed 
to be covered by e-ammonia and e-methanol, with ammonia being the predominant e-fuel, and to a much lower 
extent by e-methane and e-diesel. The model incorporates the versatility of e-methanol, not just as a fuel for 
the maritime sector, but also as a feedstock in the chemicals sector. By 2050, more than 2 Mtoe of synthesized 
methanol are used for chemicals production replacing oil and natural gas products, compared to 3 Mtoe of e-
methanol  consumed  in  the  maritime  sector.  Minor  amounts  of  e-methane,  e-diesel  and  e-gasoline  are 
consumed in other end-use sectors. Lastly, renewable hydrogen, beside of being used as feedstock for liquid 
RFNBO production, is also consumed in maritime, heavy duty vehicles and in industries both as energy carrier 
and as feedstock.  

The  POTEnCIA model explicitly considers the eligibility of renewable electricity sources for RFNBO production, 
which  is  limited  to  additional  capacity  beyond  existing  installations.  Biogenic  CO2  and  CO2  from  direct  air 
capture are the sources of CO2 considered for RFNBO production3.  

As regards the worldwide potential production, POLES-JRC modelled the renewable e-fuels demand up to 2050 
in the Global CETO 2°C scenario 2024 as reported in Figure 6. 

Figure 6. Global synfuel production (considering only e-fuels) under the Global CETO 2°C scenario 2024 of the POLES-JRC 
model. 

 100

e
o
t
M

,

n
o
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
p
s
l
e
u
f
n
y
S

 80

 60

 40

 20

2020

2025
Gaseous synfuels, Production

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Liquid synfuels, Production

Source: JRC-POLES model 

The share of e-fuels in the world energy mix will vary depending on each country's decarbonization targets and 
the specific applications where e-fuels are most needed (geography, costs, etc.). While e-fuels will be essential 
for achieving climate neutrality, especially in hard-to-abate sectors, they are part of a broader set of solutions 
that include energy efficiency, modal shifts, and direct electrification.  

3 For a limited period of time, fossil CO2 captured from power plants and from specific industrial installations is also allowed as feedstock for RFNBO 
production,  in  particular  until  2035  in  the  case  of  CO2  captured  in  power  plants  and  until  2040  in  the  case  of  CO2  captured  in  specific  industrial 
installations. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
Moreover, it will be challenging to evaluate the quantity of e-fuels generated from renewables compared to the 
ones generated by low-carbon hydrogen (i.e. produced from nuclear electricity or fossil-based sources with CCS). 
For instance, the IEA Net Zero scenario (International Energy Agency (IEA), 2021a) considers a broader category 
for low carbon hydrogen (including renewables), and the quantity of e-fuels produced towards 2050 results 
higher than the JRC-POLES’ Global CETO 2°C scenario 2024 projection.  The transition to a sustainable e-fuels 
economy  will  require  coordinated  effort  among  national  governments,  companies,  and  international 
organizations to ensure that production is ramped up sustainably and equitably, including collaborative efforts 
in developing infrastructures. Other model exercises can lead to very different results, for instance, when the 
demand of e-fuels and e-chemicals at 2050 considers the full replacement of their  respective fossil-based 
counterparts, results in extremely higher supply than the previous models (Galimova et al., 2023). A detailed 
analysis of the current and upcoming initiatives is reported in the following sections.  

e-Methanol 

Several  PtX  projects  have  been  announced  that  will  introduce  e-methanol  in  the  fuel  market.  Among  these 
projects, the Megaton project led by GreenGo Energy in Denmark is a significant initiative aiming to produce 1 
million tonnes or 2.87 Mtoe of green hydrogen by 2030, which is expected to be dedicated to the production of 
green fuel, including methanol. The San Roque Ammonia project in Spain, developed by Cepsa and Yara, while 
primarily focused on ammonia, is also significant due to the scale and the potential for methanol production as 
part of the broader e-fuels category, aiming to produce 750,000 tonnes or 0.33 Mtoe of e-ammonia annually 
by 2027 if the final investment decision is received. 

The  Green  Fuels  for  Denmark  (GFDK)  project  is  a  partnership  of  companies  across  the  value  chain  for  e-
methanol. It involves several Danish companies, from power generation, such as Orsted, to leading off-takers 
of the green fuel, such as the shipping companies Maersk and DFDS. The project also aims to use the e-methanol 
as an input for aviation fuel, producing e-kerosene. To secure the off-take of the aviation fuel, the project also 
counts with the partnership of SAS and Copenhagen Airport. The project aims to produce about 30,000 t/y of 
mainly e-methanol, being scalable to up to 60,000 t/y in the future. The project has been granted IPCEI status, 
with a total funding of DKK 850 million (€114  million) (Transport & Environment, 2024a). 

Similarly, the Port of Gothenburg project involves several companies across the value chain. It has been set up 
by the Gothenburg Port Authority, Sweden, and involves companies such as Stena Line, Orsted, DFDS, and Liquid 
Wind, in order to make it Europe's first e-methanol hub. The port will be fed with e-methanol produced by the 
project  FlagshipONE,  the  first  commercial-scale  PtX  facility,  which  will  come  into  operation  stage  by  2025, 
producing  circa  50,000  t/y  of  e-methanol.  It  has  been  calculated  that  e-methanol  reduces  the  shipping 
emissions in the port area by 70% (Transport & Environment, 2024a). However, a recent update reported that 
Orsted abandoned the project in favour of RFNBO hydrogen production (S&P Global, 2024). 

Hynetherlands is another project involving a value chain of green hydrogen. The project is being developed in 
the Netherlands and involves deployment of renewable energy to produce green hydrogen, of carbon capture 
and of e-methanol production facilities. The project plans to deliver e-methanol for the maritime sector as the 
first  users,  and later include  the  demand  of  chemical,  plastic, steel,  glass  and  other industries.  Engie  is the 
company driving the project, and it counts with the collaboration of OCI, a methanol producer, and EEW, a waste-
to-energy company (Transport & Environment, 2024a). 

Some of the main companies in the e-methanol value chain are listed below (this is an illustrative list): 

• European Energy (Denmark)  
• Orsted (Denmark)  
• CIP (Denmark) 
• Total Energies (France)  
• Maersk (Denmark)  

29 

 
 
 
 
 
• HMM (South Korea)  
• MAN Energy Solutions (Germany)  
• Siemens Energy (Germany)  
• Engie (France)  
• Enel (Italy)  
• OCI (Netherlands)  
• EEW (Germany)  
• Haldor Topsoe (Denmark)  
• Stena Line (Sweden)  
• DFDS (Denmark)  
• Liquid Wind (Sweden)  
• Inter Terminals (Sweden)  
• Alfa Laval (Sweden)  
• Perstop (Sweden)  
• HIF Global (US)  
• Carbon Clean (UK)  
• Celanese (US)  
• Porsche (Germany)  
• Mitsui & Co (Japan)  
• Shenergy Group (China)  
• CHN Energy (China)  
• Henan Shuncheng Group (China) 

e-Ammonia 

Thirteen  of  the  announced  projects  are  to  be  developed  in  Europe,  amounting  to  a  total  production  of 
approximately 1,600,000 t/y (some of the projects do not yet have their production capacities disclosed). 36 
projects have been announced outside of Europe, amounting to a total production of approximately 69,400,000 
t/y. Of these projects, 16 are to be developed in Australia. 
Based  on  the  announced  projects  so  far,  Denmark  is  expected  to  be  the  largest  producer  of  e-ammonia  in 
Europe, accounting 655,000 t/y. Norway has the second highest production capacity announced, expecting to 
produce 590,000 t/y, and having two development projects yet to disclose their production capacity. 

Figure 7.  E-ammonia planned capacity in Europe 

Source: (IRENA and AEA, 2022)  

30 

 
 
 
 
According to the Ammonia Energy Association's website, 20 e-ammonia projects have been announced. Based 
on these, the total global e-ammonia production capacity is expected to reach approximately 90,000,000 t/y 
by 2035. Approximately 1,105,000 t/y is expected to be produced in Europe. This would account for 1.2% of 
the global production in 2035. 

IRENA  report  on  Renewable  Ammonia  (IRENA  and  AEA,  2022)  mapped  a  total  of  54  existing  and  planned 
production plants, being both brownfield and greenfield investments. More recent estimations mapped up to 66 
projects worldwide (Sia Partners, 2024), but many of these novel projects or initiatives under developments still 
need  further  data  assessment.  The  largest  ammonia  companies in  the  world  (CF  Industries and  Yara)  have 
announced projects to revamp their existing production facilities to substitute their ammonia production fully 
or partially with e-ammonia, as well as to build new production facilities for the green chemical. 

The 54 projects identified by IRENA are expected to have a total production of 15 Mt per year by 2030, which 
would account for 6% of the total global ammonia production by then. By 2040, the announced projects are 
expected to deliver up to 71 Mt/y globally. The HØST PtX Esbjerg project, to be developed in Esbjerg, Denmark, 
is the largest of the European projects. This project is being developed by Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, 
Maersk, and  DFDS, and is expected to have a  production  over 600,000 t/y. The project aims to produce the 
ammonia for both maritime fuel and fertilizer applications, yielding either 600,000 tons of bunkering fuel, or 
1.5m tons of fertilizer. It has an estimated CAPEX of EUR 1.4 billion and is expected to start operating by 2028-
2029. This project  will create circa  100 to 150  permanent jobs  (Transport  & Environment, 2024a). The San 
Roque Ammonia project in Spain, as mentioned earlier, is also a significant initiative in the e-ammonia space, 
aiming to produce 750,000 tonnes or 0.33 Mtoe of e-ammonia annually by 2027, if the expected investment 
funds materialise. 

The largest announced project in the world so far is the Western Green Energy Hub to be developed by the 
Singapore-based  company  InterContinental  Energy  in  Western  Australia.  The  project  will  deploy  50  GW  of 
renewable electricity, 30 GW from wind and 20 GW from solar, to generate 3,500,000 tons of green hydrogen 
per year, which will be converted to 20,000,000 t/y of e-ammonia. 

Table 11. E-Ammonia supply and demand projections 

Supply 

Source 

(IRENA and AEA, 2022) Mega-project – Ammonia Energy Association 

Number of projects 

Expected production 

54 

Demand 

Source 

(Ram et al., 2020)  

~71- 90 million t/y by 2040 (1-2% in Europe) 

Year 

TWh 

2030 

78 

2040 

2,249 

2050 

3,340 

Market share (of TWh demand among RFNBO in 2050) 

7.8% 

Source: (IRENA and AEA, 2022) 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
e-Kerosene 

The  use  of  SAF  in  EU  is  regulated  by  the  REFuelEU  aviation  Regulation  (EU)  2023/2405,  which  provides  a 
mandate for EU SAF demand and the corresponding fuel production up to 2030 and beyond. According to the 
ASTM rules for blending synthetic jet fuel into the commercial blend (Moriarty and Mccormick, 2023), the fuel 
blending limits are 50/50 for almost all certified pathways. Among these, e-SAF produced from FT- and ATJ is 
already recognized, and the methanol-to-jet pathway is in the pipeline for ASTM approval (Van Dyk and Saddler, 
2024).  

According to the IEA Bioenergy T39 report, several companies have already started on the production of SAF, 
but  these  are  mostly  bio-derived  jet  fuels.  The  European  NGO  Transport  and  Environment  identified  45  e-
kerosene projects in the EEA in 2023 (Transport & Environment, 2024b), adding 17 since November 2022, and 
including 8 major new announcements. These 25 industrial and 20 pilot projects are expected to produce 1.7 
Mt of e-kerosene by 2030, exceeding the ReFuelEU target of 1.2% and aiming for 2% by 2032. However, today 
production is still far below this target. The EU's new Net Zero Industry Act (NZIA) (European Parliament and the 
Council of the European Union, 2024) included SAF as essential for the 2040 climate goals, ensuring aviation's 
role in the EU's climate strategy. However, the absence of final investment decisions (FID) for these projects 
means their capacities remain provisional. The NZIA, together with EU funding and private investments, is set 
to enhance SAF market uptake, supporting a sustainable aviation industry transition. 

Figure 8. E-kerosene planned capacity in the EEA per advancement stage compared with ReFuelEU blending mandates 

Source: NGO Transport and Environment (Transport & Environment, 2024b) 

The Sasol, DHL, and HH2E project in Eastern Germany is a significant e-kerosene project with an announced 
annual  production  of  200,000  tons  of  e-fuels  starting  in  2030.  This  project  is  one  of  the  largest  new 
announcements and is expected to fulfil the entirety of the 2% quota set by the German national PtL roadmap 
(Transport & Environment, 2024b). 

The Norsk e-Fuel project in Norway, with its Alpha, Beta, and Gamma plants, is planning to produce a total of 
160,000 tons of e-kerosene by 2030. The Alpha plant is expected to start operations in 2026 with a production 
capacity of 32,000 tons, followed by the Beta and Gamma plants with similar capacities. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Green Fuels for Denmark project is a partnership between the energy and transport industries with Ørsted, 
DSV, Maersk, DFDS, Copenhagen Airports and Scandinavian Airlines. It will produce a slate of PtL products for 
the road, aviation and maritime sectors. The project plans to start production in 2025 with over 30,000 tons of 
PtL  fuel  from wind  power.  The  European  Commission  recognized  Green  Fuels for  Denmark  as an  important 
project of common European interest (IPCEI), allowing the Danish government to support the project with public 
funding (DKK 850 million) (Transport & Environment, 2024a). 

Atmosfair started operation at a PtL aviation fuel plant in 2021. The plant is located in Werlte, Germany, and 
the transport companies Lufthansa and Kuehne+Nagel will purchase the annual production of 25,000 litres of 
aviation fuel (Transport & Environment, 2024b). 

The  Hyskies  project  in  Sweden  with  energy  company  Vattenfall,  Scandinavian  Airlines  and  fuel  producer 
Lanzatech will produce power-to-liquid (PtL) SAF from 2025-26. The planned production volume reaches 50 
000 tonnes per year, or 30% of kerosene used on domestic flights in Sweden. Based nearby Arlanda airport, 
the  production  will  use  renewable  electricity  and  point-source  carbon  capture  from  a  nearby  power  plant." 
(International Transport Forum, p.28, 2023).  

The SAF production capacity target by 2050, according to SAF producer estimations, need 104-106 SAF plants 
to be built, requiring an estimated investment of circa €10.4-10.5 billion. Furthermore, it is estimated that this 
emerging market will create around 202,100 additional jobs and will reduce external costs from air pollution 
(due to the lower content of aromatics of synthetic fuels) by €1.5 billion by 2050 (Transport & Environment, 
2024b). 

e-Methane 

According to the Global Alliance Powerfuels, e-methane will account for almost 20% of the e-fuels global energy 
demand by 2050, having a total of 8,590 TWh of final thermal energy demand. E-methane could be applied in 
the areas of transportation, power generation, and industrial heating. Use of e-methane fuel is being explored 
in the maritime sector, as it is suitable for dual-engine vessels running in LNG. A few projects have  started 
exploring this solution. Synthetic methane is also being widely considered, especially in gas-dependent regions, 
as a new source of gas supply, for power generation and heating. Several initiatives have started projecting and 
demonstrating  the  application  of  e-methane  to  the  gas  grid,  as  a  form  of  broadening  its  gas-sourcing  and 
decarbonizing  the  heating  sector.  The  list  of  the  current  EU  initiatives, both  ongoing  and planned,  has been 
thoroughly prepared by the EBA  (European Biogas Association (EBA), 2024) and summarized in the appendix.  

In the maritime sector, the French company, Engie, entered a partnership with the shipping company CMA CGM 
to  develop  synthetic  methane  production  and  distribution  for  the  shipping  sector.  The  shipping  company 
currently has 20 dual-fuel engines vessels running on LNG, which are "e-methane ready". By the end of 2024, 
the company expects to have 44 vessels ready to run on e-methane. 

In the gas sector, the Japanese company, Mitsubishi Corporation, is developing a project with Tokyo Gas, Osaka 
Gas and Togo Gas, to build a complete supply chain, from hydrogen production and carbon capture, in order to 
produce e-methane. The project is targeting its production facility to be placed in the US, which would then 
produce  130,000  t/y  of  e-methane,  all  which  would  be  then  exported  to  Japan,  utilizing  existing  gas 
infrastructure for transport and storage. The project aims to decarbonize its heat sector, and is expected to start 
operations by 2030. Another Japanese initiative comes through the Australian company Santos Energy Solutions 
entering an agreement with the Japanese Osaka Gas to develop a demonstration-scale plant in Australia. The 
project will use green hydrogen and either point source CO2 or DAC. Operations are expected to commence by 
2030, when it will export about 60,000 t/y of e-methane to Japan. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In Europe, the Belgian company, Tree Energy Solutions, is developing a green energy hub by the German port 
of Wilhelmshaven, where around 20,000 t/y of e-methane will be imported by 2025, which will be a small share 
of LNG import. The synthetic fuel will be imported as a carrier for green hydrogen, meaning that upon arrival, 
the fuel will be once again broken down into hydrogen and CO2. Almost the whole amount of this CO2 (depending 
on the CCU efficiency) can be captured and re-sent to produce a new batch of e-methane, making it a closed 
loop. The company claims that this is the most cost-effective way to import hydrogen. 

The French project, Jupiter 1000, is a demonstration project of hydrogen production through electrolysis and e-
methane production through methanation and CO2 captured on a nearby industrial site. The project counts with 
a range of companies expanding through the whole value chain of e-methane production. The project planned  
ending its trials in 2024, and has a methane production of 25m³/h.  

2.3  Technology Costs 

This section uses to technology costs published in 2024 by Concawe and Aramco in their report no 4/24 (Soler 
et al., 2024) replacing the previous analysis referring to earlier studies (Yugo and Soler, 2019; Soler et al., 2022). 
The figure below is extracted from the report. The chart was elaborated by LBST in 2023 (Schmidt et al., 2023). 
Each of the 9 e-fuels is represented by 3 values corresponding to production costs for north, central and south-
Europe in 2030, where each region uses a different electricity mix. The chart shows that the lowest costs are 
found in southern Europe, and the highest production costs are estimated to be in northern Europe. In 2030, 
the  second  cheapest  after  e-ammonia  is  e-methanol,  with  potential  future  production  cost  for  e-methanol 
around 1.60 - 2.35 €/l diesel equivalent4. 

The chart shows that the dominant factor impacting e-fuels production costs is electricity cost (blue fields). The 
chart shows that southern Europe has the most favorable regional conditions to produce renewable electricity 
at relatively low electricity prices. The second main factor is electrolyser cost (orange color on the chart). The 
values of the Figure 9 are summarised in the table below. 

Figure 9. Costs of e-fuels produced inside Europe by zone in 2030 (N: North EU; C: Central EU; S: South EU) 

Source: Concawe and Aramco report no 4/24, figure 28 of the report 

4 the equivalent amount of fuel with the same energy content 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 12. Costs of e-fuels produced in Europe in 2020, in 2030, in 2050 

E-fuel pathways 

2020 

2030 

2050 

[€/l diesel 
equivalent] 

[€/l diesel 
equivalent] 

[€/l diesel 
equivalent] 

Note: the ranges below reflect the spread of north, central and south-Europe projected costs 

H2 

CH4 

2.08-3.11 

1.74-2.22 

1.51-1.87 

2.06-3.47 

1.79-2.45 

1.71-2.33 

Methanol 

1.92-3.48 

1.60-2.35 

1.62-2.37 

OMEx* 

3.44-6.78 

2.84-4.49 

2.79-4.33 

MtG* 

MtK* 

NH3 

FTK* 

FTD* 

2.12-3.77 

1.78-2.57 

1.77-2.55 

2.09-3.75 

1.74-2.54 

1.73-2.51 

1.77-3.19 

1.52-2.19 

1.30-1.87 

2.68-4.59 

2.29-3.17 

1.95-2.77 

2.73-4.63 

2.34-3.22 

1.99-2.81 

*OMEx: Oxymethyleneether, MtG: Methanol-to-gasoline, MtK: Methanol-to-kerosene, FTK: Fischer-Tropsch kerosene, FTD: Fischer-Tropsch 
diesel 

Source: Concawe and Aramco report no 4/24, figures 27, 28, 29 by LBST, 2023/05 

The Concawe and Aramco report no 4/24 also included estimations on the e-fuels production costs in the e-fuel 
synthesis plants to 2050. The data are summarised in the Table 12.  

The data show a potential for cost reductions from 2020 to 2050 for the following e-fuels (Table 13): 

●  For e-methane the CAPEX upper value (to reach the capacity) of the range reflecting north, central 
and south-Europe projected costs is EUR 1422 million in 2020 and EUR 998 million in 2050. This 
represents a reduction of 30 %. The annual OPEX is assumed to be 3% of the CAPEX. 

●  For e-methanol the CAPEX upper value of the range reflecting north, central and  south-Europe 
projected  costs  is  EUR  1356  million  in  2020  and  EUR  900  million  in  2050.  This  represents  a 
reduction of 34%. The annual OPEX is assumed to be 3% of the CAPEX. 

●  For e-OME the CAPEX upper value of the range reflecting north, central and south-Europe projected 
costs is EUR 518 million in 2020 and EUR 344 million in 2050. This represents a reduction of 34%. 
The annual OPEX is assumed to be 4.5% of the CAPEX. 

●  For e-MTG (e-gasoline) the CAPEX upper value of the range reflecting north, central and south-
Europe projected costs is EUR 537 million in 2020 and EUR 358 million in 2050. This represents a 
reduction of 33%. The annual OPEX is assumed to be 4.5% of the CAPEX. 

●  For e-MTK (e-kerosene) the CAPEX upper value of the range reflecting north, central and south-
Europe projected costs is EUR 537 million in 2020 and EUR 358 million in 2050. This represents a 
reduction of 35%. The annual OPEX is assumed to be 4.5% of the CAPEX. 

●  On the other hand the data show an increase of the production costs for e-Ammonia and e-FT.  

●  For e-Ammonia  the CAPEX upper value of the range reflecting north, central and south-Europe 
projected  costs  is  EUR  975  million  in  2020  and  EUR  986  million  in  2050.  This  represents  an 
increase of 1%. The annual OPEX is assumed to be 3% of the CAPEX. 

35 

 
●  For e-FT the CAPEX upper value of the range reflecting north, central and south-Europe projected 
costs is EUR  1678 million in 2020 and EUR 1958 million in 2050. This represents a reduction of 
17%. The annual OPEX is assumed to be 3% of the CAPEX. 

Table 13. E-fuel production costs: CAPEX and OMEX overview for the e-fuel synthesis plants in Europe 

E-fuel 

Year 

Capacity 

CAPEX 

CAPEX  

Fixed O&M:  

[MW, LHV]  

[€/kW, LHV]  

[million €]  

3% 
CAPEX/yr  

of 

Note:  range  reflects  north,  central  and  south-Europe 
projected costs 

Table where the 
source 
is 
available  

Methanation 
plant  

2020 

1615-1796 

792 

1279-1422 

3% of CAPEX/yr  

[Table 88] 

2030 

1615-1810 

2050 

1648-1844 

Methanol plant 

2020 

1606-1765 

2030 

1615-1776 

2050 

1634-1800 

synthesis 

2020 

1594-1687 

OME 
plant 

2030 

1604-1707 

2050 

1609-1722 

704 

541 

768 

672 

500 

307 

269 

200 

1137-1275 

892-998 

1234-1356 

194-1114 

817-900 

490-518 

431-459 

322-344 

synthesis 

2020 

1603-1747- 

307 

493-537 

MTG 
plant * 

2030 

1610-1770 

2050 

1627-1792 

synthesis 

2020 

1603-1747 

MTK 
plant 

2030 

1610-1770 

2050 

1627-1792 

269 

200 

307 

269 

200 

433-476 

325-358 

420 

368 

273 

3% of CAPEX/yr  

3% of CAPEX/yr  

3% of CAPEX/yr  

[Table 97] 

3% of CAPEX/yr  

3% of CAPEX/yr  

[Table 107] 

[Table 116] 

[Table 116] 

4.5% 
CAPEX/yr  

4.5% 
CAPEX/yr  

4.5% 
CAPEX/yr  

4.5% 
CAPEX/yr  

4.5% 
CAPEX/yr  

4.5% 
CAPEX/yr  

4.5% 
CAPEX/yr  

4.5% 
CAPEX/yr  

4.5% 
CAPEX/yr  

of 

of 

of 

of 

of 

of 

of 

of 

of 

Ammonia 
synthesis plant 

2020 

1620-1811 

n/a 

902-975 

3% of CAPEX/yr  

[Table 121] 

FTD: 

FTK, 
synthesis plant   

FT 

2030 

1624-1820 

2050 

1653-1840 

n/a 

n/a 

903-978 

914-986 

3% of CAPEX/yr  

3% of CAPEX/yr  

2020 

1489-1526 

1098-1099 

1637-1678 

3% of CAPEX/yr  

[Table 130] 

2030 

1488-1516 

1098-1099 

1635-1666 

3% of CAPEX/yr  

[Table 131] 

2050 

1621-1789 

1094-1097 

1778-1958 

3% of CAPEX/yr 

[Table 132] 

Source: Concawe and Aramco report no 4/24 

36 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Figure 10 shows overnight investment cost at global level based on the Global CETO 2°C scenario calculated 
with the POLES-JRC model (details available in Annex 2). The strongly decreasing cost from the of end 2020’s 
to about 2035 is a result of endogenous learning induced by the fast deployment of synfuel capacities during 
this period. This initial cost decrease triggers thereafter the expansion of the production reaching over 100 Mtoe 
of production (for both fuels) in 2050..  

Figure 10. Synfuels global overnight investment cost and production 

2 400

2 000

1 600

1 200

 800

 400

W
k
/
2
2
0
2
$

,
t
s
o
c

t
n
e
m
t
s
e
v
n

i

i

t
h
g
n
r
e
v
O

90

75

60

45

30

15

e
o
t
M

,

n
o
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
P

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

0
2050

Gaseous synfuels, Inv. cost
Gaseous synfuels, Production

Liquid synfuels, Inv. cost
Liquid synfuels, Production

Source: JRC-POLES model 

The global production of synfuels (gaseous and liquid) reaches about 90 Mtoe by 2050 as also shown in Figure 
10. These global projections are based on the Global CETO 2°C scenario 2024 which showcases a future where 
concerted efforts to limit global temperature increases to 2°C yield transformative impacts on the production 
and  economic  viability  of  clean  energy  technologies.  The  report  acknowledges  historical  fluctuations  in 
renewable technology costs, sourced from IRENA data up to 2022/23, but shows more stable cost descent from 
2025 onwards. Notably, the 2024 iteration of this scenario distinguishes itself from its 2023 predecessor by 
integrating advanced modelling of endogenous learning and more detailed representations of technologies such 
as Direct Air Capture (DAC), hydrogen transport technologies, and batteries in transport. These enhancements 
have led to substantial scenario differences regarding the deployment and cost development of DAC, synfuels, 
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) power technologies, wind power, and ocean power. The chart thus projects a 
future where increased production and technological learning drive down the costs of synfuels, making them a 
more economically viable option within the low-carbon transition envisaged in the  Global CETO 2°C scenario 
2024. 

2.4  Public RD&I Funding and Investments 

RFNBO  available  technologies  have  been  mainly  funded  by  Horizon  2020  projects  (data  extracted  from 
TIM/CORDIS),  and  the  current  Horizon  Europe  programme  is  dedicating  specific  calls  to  such  technologies. 
Innovation Fund will also support the development of the sector, but mainly focusing on the upstream processes 
of H2 production and CO2 capture and utilization. 

Horizon 2020 funded 33 projects concerning RFNBO other than pure electrolytic hydrogen (Table 14). All the 
projects used innovative technologies and were RIAs, with max TRL 5 at the end of the project. The total EU 
funding received by the projects totalled 114 M€. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 14. Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe projects on RFNBO. 

Project 
Acronym 

Project Title 

Feedstock 

Technology 

SUN-to-
LIQUID 

SUNlight-to-LIQUID: Integrated solar-
thermochemical  synthesis  of  liquid 
hydrocarbon fuels 

Sunlight, 
CO2 

CSP, FT 

FReSME 

From residual gasses to methanol 

from 

CO2 
steel 

Sorption-enhanced 
water–gas 
shift 
(SEWGS) technology + 
water  electrolysis  + 
catalytic conversion 

CO2 

Electrobioreactor  

eForFuel 

KEROGRE
EN 

from  electricity:  de  novo 
of 
conversion 
produced 

Fuels 
metabolic 
electrochemically 
 format into hydrocarbons 

 CO2 

Production  of  Sustainable  aircraft 
grade  Kerosene  from  water  and  air 
powered  by  Renewable  Electricity, 
through  the  splitting  of  CO2,  syngas 
formation 
Fischer-Tropsch 
synthesis 

and 

CO2Fokus 

CO2  utilisation  focused  on  market 
relevant  dimethyl  ether  production, 
via  3D  printed  reactor  -  and  solid 
oxide cell-based technologies 

CO2 

eCOCO2 

Direct  electrocatalytic  conversion  of 
CO2 into chemical energy carriers in a 
co-ionic membrane reactor  

CO2 

plasma 
driven 
dissociation  of  air 
captured  CO2,  solid 
membrane 
oxide 
oxygen separation, FT 

hydrogenation 
CO2 
both 
involving 
catalytic chemical and 
electrochemical 
conversion 

electrochemical: 
multifunctional 
catalyst  integrated  in 
a 
co-ionic 
electrochemical cell 

End-
product 

EU 
Contribution 

kilo € 

Synthetic 
jet fuel 

4,451 €  

methanol 

11,407 €  

4,117 €  

Propane 
and 
isobutene 

biojet 

4,951€  

DME 

3,994€  

synthetic 
jet fuel 

3,949€ 

C2Fuel 

COZMOS 

Carbon  Captured  Fuel  and  Energy 
Carriers for  an  Intensified Steel  Off-
Gases based Electricity Generation in 
a Smarter Industrial Ecosystem 

from 

CO2 
steel 

electrochemical, 
several routes 

3,999 € 

biodiesel, 
formic 
acid 

CO2 

Efficient 
over 
multisite Zeolite-Metal nanocatalysts 
to fuels and Olefins 

conversion 

from 
and 

CO2 
steel 
refinery 

electrochemical: 
multisite 
Zeolite-
Metal nano catalysts 

propane, 
propene 

3,997 € 

SELECTC
O2 

Selective  Electrochemical  Reduction 
of CO2 to High Value Chemicals 

CO2  

TAKE-
OFF 

Production  of  synthetic  renewable 
aviation fuel from CO2 and H2 

CO2 

ECOFUEL 

Renewable  Electricity-based,  cyclic 
and economic production of Fuel 

CO2 

METHAS
OL 

 International 
selective  conversion  of  CO2 
METHAnol under SOLar light 

cooperation 

for 
into 

CO2 

38 

Selective 
Electrochemical 
Reduction  of  CO2  to 
High Value Chemicals 

carbon 
monoxide
,  ethanol 
or 
ethylene 

3,772€ 

conversion of CO2 and 
H2 to SAF via ethylene 
as intermediate 

Aviation 
fuel 

4,998 € 

electrochemical 
conversion  of  CO2  to 
transport 
fuels  via 
light alkenes 

transport 
fuels 

4,858 € 

reduction 

CO2 
artificial 
photosynthesis  with 

via 

methanol 

3,999€ 

Project 
Acronym 

Project Title 

Feedstock 

Technology 

End-
product 

EU 
Contribution 

corresponding 
photocatalysts 

NEFERTIT
I 

Innovative  photocatalysts  integrated 
in  flow  photoreactor  systems  for 
direct  CO2  and  H2O  conversion  into 
solar fuels  

CO2, H2O 

photocatalysis for CO2 
and H2O conversion to 
alcohols 

Ethanol, 
longer 
chain 
alcohols 

kilo € 

3,844 € 

TELEGRA
M 

TOWARD 
EFFICIENT 
ELECTROCHEMICAL GREEN AMMONIA 
CYCLE 

Air,  water 
and 
renewable 
energy 

Electrochemical 
ammonia 
synthesis 
and  direct  ammonia 
fuel cell 

NH3  as 
energy 
carrier 

3,468€ 

LAURELI
N 

CO2 

methanol 

conversion 

to 
Selective 
renewable 
through 
innovative  heterogeneous  catalyst 
systems  optimized  for  advanced 
hydrogenation 
technologies 
(microwave,  plasma  and  magnetic 
induction). 

CO2 and H2 

disruptive 
multifunctional 
catalyst  systems  for 
CO2 hydrogenation  

Renewabl
e 
methanol 

4,448 € 

4AIRCRAF
T 

Air Carbon Recycling for Aviation Fuel 
Technology 

CO2/H2 

ORACLE 

 Novel 
routes  and  catalysts  for 
synthesis of ammonia  as  alternative 
renewable fuel 

N2/H2O 

fuel 
Jet 
(C8-C16) 

2,239€ 

NH3 

2,846 € 

Novel  multi  catalyst 
technology 
reactor 
that 
combines 
electro-,  chemo-,  and 
biocatalysts 
to 
provide  a  net-neutral 
carbon-based fuel for 
aviation 

plasma-aided  electro 
catalytic  as  well  as 
electrified 
thermal 
catalysis 

UP-TO-
ME 

Unmanned-Power-to-Methanol-
production 

CO2 
from 
biogas  and 
H2O 

3D  printed  methanol 
synthesis reactor 

2,997 € 

renewabl
e 
methanol 

E-
TANDEM 

Hybrid  tandem  catalytic  conversion 
process towards higher oxygenate e-
fuels 

CO2 
H2O 

and 

electro  catalysis/solid 
thermocatalysis 

oxygenat
e e-fuels 

3,334€ 

SOREC2 

SOlar Energy to power CO2 REduction 
towards  C2  chemicals  for  energy 
storage 

H2O, 

CO2, 
sunlight 

Photo 
electrochemistry 
technology (PEC) 

ethanol 
or 
ethylene 

 3,084 € 

DARE2X 

Decentralised  Ammonia  production 
from  Renewable  Energy  utilising 
novel  sorption-enhanced  plasma-
catalytic Power-to-X technology 

DESIRED 

Direct co-processing of CO2 and water 
to  sustainable  multicarbon  energy 
products 
in  novel  photocatalytic 
reactor  

Air and H2O  Water  electrolysis  + 
non-thermal  plasma 
(sorption-enhanced 
plasma 
technology) 

catalytic 

H2O, 

CO2, 
sunlight 

e 
hybrid 
electrocatalysts 

photo-

FreeHydr
oCells 

Freestanding 
energy-to-Hydrogen 
fuel  by  water  splitting  using  Earth-
abundant  materials  in  a  novel,  eco-
friendly,  sustainable  and  scalable 
photoelectrochemical Cell system 

H2O, 
sunlight 

solar-to-chemical 
energy 
conversion 
(photoelectrochemica
l system) 

Ammonia 

2,952 

3,058€ 

C2+ solar 
fuels, 
methanol 
and 
methane 

H2 

3,748€ 

39 

Project 
Acronym 

Project Title 

Feedstock 

Technology 

MOF2H2 

for 
Metal  Organic 
Hydrogen 
by 
photocatalytic overall water splitting 

Frameworks 

production 

H2O, 
sunlight 

MOF-based 
photocatalysis 
sun-driven 
production 

for 
H2 

End-
product 

EU 
Contribution 

kilo € 

H2 

2,998€ 

ECO2fuel 

low-temperature 
Large-scale 
electrochemical  CO2  conversion  to 
sustainable liquid fuels 

CO2,  water, 
electricity 

Innovative 
electrocatalytic CO2 at 
80 °C and 15 bar 

Liquid 
fuels 

16,620 € 

FLEXnCO
NFU 

FLExibilize  combined  cycle  power 
plant  through  power-to-X  solutions 
using non-CONventional FUels 

CO2,  water, 
electricity 

MefCO2 

Synthesis of methanol from captured 
carbon 
surplus 
electricity 

dioxide 

using 

MegaSyn  Megawatt  scale  co-electrolysis  as 
e-fuels 

generation 

for 

syngas 
synthesis 

CO2,  water, 
electricity 

CO2,  water, 
electricity 

SUN-to-
LIQUID II 

SUNlight-to-LIQUID: Integrated solar-
thermochemical  synthesis  of  liquid 
hydrocarbon fuels 

CO2 
solar 

H2O, 
and 
energy 

ELCOREL 

Electrochemical 
of 
Renewable  Electricity  into  Fuels  and 
Chemicals 

Conversion 

CO2,  water, 
electricity 

HELENIC-
REF 

Hybrid  Electric  Energy 
Cluster concerning Renewable Fuels 

Integrated 

CO2,  water, 
heat 

Circlener
gy 

captured 

Production  of  renewable  methanol 
from 
and 
renewable  energy  sources,  for  its 
utilisation  for  clean  fuel  production 
and green consumer goods 

emissions 

CO2,  water, 
electricity 

9,887€ 

Hydrogen
, 
ammonia 

Methanol 

8,622 € 

Liquid 
fuels 

4,999€ 

Liquid 
fuels 

4,450€ 

3,616€ 

Fuel  and 
chemical
s 

2,578 € 

Synthetic 
natural 
gas 

Methanol 

1,827 € 

1MW  scale  power-to-
hydrogen-to-power 
system  or  ammonia 
to  be  in  turn  locally 
re-used  in  the  same 
power 
to 
plant 
balance the load 

methanol  production 
with 
CO2 
high 
concentration-
streams and H2 as an 
input 

First demonstration of 
mega-watt 
scale 
syngas  production  by 
co-electrolysis 
(SOECs) to e-fuels. 

Concentrated 
solar 
radiation  drives  a 
thermochemical 
redox  cycle,  which 
inherently operates at 
high 
temperatures 
and  utilizes  the  full 
solar spectrum 

Electrochemical 
oxidation  of  water 
and  electrochemical 
reduction  of  carbon 
dioxide  based  on  the 
principles of quantum 
chemistry 
and 
innovative catalysts 

thermolysis 
water 
innovative 
with 
catalysts 
at 
temperatures  below 
300oC 

Innovative  methanol 
production 
through 
CO2 capture with ISCC 
certified technology 

COFLeaf 

Fuel  from  sunlight:  Covalent  organic 
frameworks  as  integrated  platforms 
for photocatalytic water splitting and 
CO2 reduction 

CO2 
solar 

H2O, 
and 
energy 

Artificial 
photosynthesis  with 
polymeric 
photocatalysts  based 

methane 
or 
methanol 

1,497 € 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Project 
Acronym 

Project Title 

Feedstock 

Technology 

End-
product 

EU 
Contribution 

kilo € 

on  covalent  organic 
frameworks  

Source: TIM/CORDIS elaboration 

For feedstocks used for the RFNBO production, 26 projects have tested the CO2 recovery, 5 projects have used 
water in combination with sunlight, and 2 projects air and water. 

Concerning the technologies tested, in addition to the traditional hydrolysis and synthesis processes, there are 
also photo-electrochemical conversion, photo-catalysis, thermo-catalysis, sorption-enhanced water–gas shift, 
artificial photosynthesis.  

The processes tested are delivering as output several different products: road, maritime and synthetic jet fuels; 
methanol; methane, propane and isobutene; ethanol; ethylene, ammonia. It is worth to mention that other small 
(e.g.  MSCA)  activities  and  hybrid  projects  (thus  including  bio-feedstock)  also  study  and  demonstrate  similar 
applications, including RFNBO.  

As shown in Figure 11, Germany, Denmark and Norway received higher contribution related to the number of 
projects financed. 

Figure 11. Public R&D financing country level 2021 

Source: JRC elaboration 

The European Innovation Council EIC in the framework of Horizon Programme opens funding opportunities worth 
over  €1.72  billion  in  2024  for  breakthrough  innovators  to  scale  up  and  create  new  markets.  Such  calls 
potentially include RFNBO production. The 2024 work programme is divided in three sections: 

• 

EIC  Pathfinder  -  for  multi-disciplinary  research  teams,  worth  €256  million  in  2024,  to  undertake 
visionary research with the potential to lead to technology breakthroughs, research teams can apply 
for up to €3 or €4 million in grants, the RNFBO activities could be financed under the umbrella of EIC 
challenge: “Solar-to-X” devices towards cement and concrete as a carbon sink”. 

41 

 
 
 
 
• 

• 

EIC  Transition  -  funding  to  turn  research  results  into  innovation  opportunities,  worth  €94  million  in 
2024.  The  calls  will  focus  on  results  generated  by  EIC  Pathfinder  projects  and  European  Research 
Council Proof of Concept projects, to mature the technologies and build a business case and market 
readiness for specific applications. 
EIC Accelerator - worth €675 million in 2024, for start-ups and SMEs to develop and scale up high 
impact  innovations  with  the  potential  to  create  new  markets  or  disrupt  existing  ones.  the  RNFBIO 
activities could be financed under the umbrella of EIC challenge: “Renewable energy sources and their 
whole value chain”. 

Finally, it worth mentioning that EC is funding mainly upstream processes for CCS/CCU and hydrogen production 
by means of the Innovation Fund. The Commission ran 3 large-scale calls and 3 small-scale calls between 2020 
and 2023. (European Commission (EC), 2022). There are no specific projects based only on RFNBO production, 
but many hybrids processes which co-produce both synthetic bio- and non-biological fuels.  

2.5  Private RD&I funding 

Some data and companies investing in such technologies have been already reported in section 2.2. From the 
available  information,  there  are  still  no  large  private  funding  aimed  to  produce  e-fuels.  However,  a  recent 
initiative  coming  from  Hy2gen  AG  (i.e.,  the  German  green  hydrogen  investment  platform)  announced  the 
successful completion of a €200 million investment round in February 2022. The capital will be used for the 
construction of facilities in several geographical areas including Europe, producing green hydrogen-based fuels 
– or “e-fuels” – for maritime and ground transport, aviation and industrial applications. The investment, which 
is  the  largest  private  green  hydrogen-focused  capital  raise  to  date,  is  led  by  Hy24  with  Mirova,  CDPQ  and 
strategic investor, Technip Energies (HY2GEN, 2022). More recent data on recent private funding initiatives are 
reported in the observatories of EBA (European Biogas Association (EBA), 2024) and Transport and Environment 
(Transport & Environment, 2024a, 2024b).  

Private  Equity  (PE)  refers  to  capital  investments  (ownership  or  interest)  made  into  companies  that  are  not 
publicly traded. Venture capital (VC) is a form of private equity and a type of financing that investors provide 
to start-up companies and small businesses that have long-term growth potential. 

The early and later stages indicators that aggregate  different types of equity investments in a  selection of 
companies and along the different stages of their growth path. We only include pre-venture companies (that 
have received Angel or Seed funding, or are less than 2 years old and have not received funding) and venture 
capital companies (companies that have been part of the portfolio of a venture capital investment firm at some 
point). 

The early stages indicator includes Pre-Seed, Accelerator/Incubator, Angel, Seed and Early stage VC investments; 
it  also  includes  public  grants.  At  the  time  they  raise  such  investments,  those  companies  can  usually  be 
considered as start-ups. But while those companies often rely on innovative solutions and business models, 
such investments aim at financing the companies’ operational expenditures and investment needs until they 
can scale their revenues and cannot be assimilated to R&I funding. 

The later stages indicator reflects growth investments for the scale-up of start-ups or larger SMEs. It includes 
Late Stage VC, Small M&A and Private Equity Growth/Expansion. Very large early stage deals (outliers) are also 
re-classified as later-stage deals. Small M&A refers to the acquisition by an operating company of a non-control 
stake in a pre-venture or VC company. Later stages investments do not include Buyout Private Equity and Public 
investments. 

The lists of companies include two distinct populations: VC and corporate companies. Corporate companies are 
a selection of companies with a relevant patenting activity among the subsidiaries of top R&D investors from 
the EU Industrial R&D investment Scoreboard. 

VC companies are selected based on their activity description (specific keyword selection for each technology 
and expert inputs) and this selection does not rely on patents. This selection tries to focus on companies that 
develop and manufacture technological solutions as much as possible. It does not e.g. include operators, project 
developers, specific applications etc. 

42 

To  support  that  analysis,  the  count  of  companies  corresponds  to  the  number  of  active  companies  over  the 
current  period.  Active  corporate  companies  have  High  Value  Patents  over  the  current  period.  Active  VC 
companies  either  have  been  founded  (irrespectively  of  received  investments)  or  have  received  investments 
(irrespectively of their founding year) over the current period. 

Global  Venture  Capital  VC  and  PE  investments  in  RFNBO  firms  started  to  take  off  in  2018, display  a  sharp 
increase in 2021-22 (x 5 as compared to 2020) and exceeded EUR 600 million in 2022. For 2023, however, the 
value has decreased to the levels of 2021, particularly due to the European contribution which had been largely 
disbursed in the previous year. Figure 12 recaps such findings here below. 

Figure 12. RFNBO VC/PE investment by region 

Source: JRC elaboration 

Over the period 2018-23, global VC and PE investments amount to EUR 1.8 billion, which represents a nine–
fold increase as compared to a previous 2012-17 period of very low investment levels. The EU hosts 35 % of 
active venture capital companies’ investment over the 2017-22 period. Germany (2nd) hosts half of EU ventures 
and follows the US (1st), which hosts 40% of active VC companies. Figure 13 reports such findings here below. 

43 

 
 
 
Figure 13. VC/PE investment in top 10 beneficiary countries, by period for all deals (top), early-stage deals (bottom left) 
and later-stage deals (bottom right) 

Source: JRC elaboration 

VC investments in RFNBO firms are however driven by a limited number of ventures that account for the main 
part of investments over the 2017-22 period.  

Over the 2017-22 period, the EU accounted for 17.6 %  of  global early stage investments. This amounts to 
EUR 67.5 million and essentially consist of grant funding (70 %). The US led the early stage investment race 
with companies such a as Prometheus and Infinium that together accounted for 46 % of global early stage 
investments.  

In  the  same  period,  the  EU  accounted  for  52 %  of  global  later  stage  investment  (amounting  to 
EUR 351.2 million). This was essentially due to a large deal realised in 2022 by the German company Sunfire 
(DE, syngas electrolysis solutions), which by itself accounted for 35 % of global later stage investments. The 
US and Canada ranked next, supported by investments realised since 2019 in Lanzajet (US), Carbon Engineering 
(CA) and others. 

44 

 
 
 
2.6  Patenting trends 

The patents of RFNBO overlap significantly with those analysed in the “advanced biofuels” CETO report (Hurtig 
et al., 2023), since most processes are in common, or are the same as those used for bio-derived processing 
technologies (e.g. FT-process). This means that the process does not change if biogenic carbon (in the form of 
CO2/CO)  is  used  as  feedstock.  The  same  consideration  holds  for  novel  patents  deriving  from  hydrogen  and 
carbon capture-related production. 

2.7  Scientific publication trends 

At  global  level,  the  publications  on  RFNBO  gained  momentum  from  2017  onward,  with  the  EU  leading  the 
ranking and quadruplicating from 20 to 80 publications per year, as shown in Figure 14.  Concerning the share 
of EU publications among the top 10% most cited articles in the field, the EU had 99 highly cited publication 
with  a  share  of  36% among  the  top  10%  most  cited  in  the  field, as reported  in  Figure  15.  At  the  EU  level 
Germany leads the publication in the field  with almost 120 publication and a share of 27% of highly cited 
articles, as shown in Figure 16. 

Figure 14. RFNBO publications 

Source: JRC elaboration 

45 

 
 
 
 
Figure 15. RFNBO global publications of highly cited papers 2010-2022 

Source: JRC elaboration 

Figure 16. RFNBO EU countries publications with share of highly cited papers 2010-2022 

Source: JRC elaboration 

The publication cluster shows a particular relation between the EU and the RoW with a connection with UK and 
Switzerland as well, as shown in Figure 17. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 17. RFNBO global publication cluster 2010-2022 

Source: JRC elaboration 

The cluster at the EU level evidences links between Germany with Spain and Poland, and Italy with Netherlands.  

Figure 18. RFNBO European publication cluster 2010-2022 

Source: JRC elaboration 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
2.8  Sustainability/resilience 

Today the biggest barriers to RFNBO industry development are the lack of hydrogen supply for this scope, and 
the upcoming phasing out of internal combustion engines for passenger cars towards the full electrification of 
the sector. Another major issue is related to the high cost of e-fuels, driven by the high cost of investment and 
high cost of electricity. Even if some Member States as Germany and Italy recently expressed their opposition  
(ICCT,  2022)  to  the  EU  regulation  on  “CO₂  emission  performance  standards  for  cars  and  vans”  (European 
Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2023d), the possibility to create new economic businesses 
for this sector has not been attractive so far (except for transport sectors as aviation, which may be of high 
interest for the mid-term scenario). This barrier could be somewhat mitigated through the specific supporting 
schemes  focusing  on  RFNBO  supply  for  the  hard-to-abate  sectors  (aviation  and  maritime)  which  would  be 
weaker given the unavailability of alternatives, i.e. direct electrification solutions.  

However,  RFNBO for road  transport  has  garnered  new  considerable  interest  after the  release  of  the  Draghi 
report  in  September  2024  (Draghi,  2024),  which  proposes  that  EU  competitiveness  should  follow  a 
technologically neutral approach and should take stock of market and technological developments. The analysis 
underscored the importance of adopting sustainable alternative fuels (such as RFNBO and biofuels) as a critical 
measure for the decarbonization of the whole transport sector, thereby leaving  the final decision to each MS 
to choose their preferred way to reduce GHG emissions. For such scenario, sustainability of e-fuels needs to 
meet the requirements set in the RED II and its  delegated acts on hydrogen (see section  1.2), and the new 
requirements  that  the  EC  will  publish  by  the  end  of  2025  in  a  report  setting  out  the  methodology  for  the 
assessment and the consistent data reporting of the full life-cycle CO2 emissions of passenger cars and light 
commercial vehicles that are placed on the EU market (European Parliament and the Council of the European 
Union, 2023d).  

For the coming years, the support to e-fuels technologies could lead to creating stable business models and 
competitive cost levels to the counterfactual alternatives as fossil fuels. However, once the hydrogen market is 
developed and resilient energy- and fuel-supply frame established, the industry can develop rapidly since such 
technologies  have  the  ability  to  scale  up  production  quickly  to  meet  the  potential  demand.  Also  regulatory 
barriers such as chain of custody for electricity/H2/CO2 source and planning arrangements will be already solved 
(since today they regard mostly electricity/H2/CO2 management and trading).  Today the sector still relies on 
economic  support  from  demonstration  projects  which  are  helping  to  break  down  cost  barriers,  promote 
standards and develop the first value chains (easier to scale up than biofuels).  

48 

 
 
 
3  Conclusions 

Renewable fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBO), are synthetic, gaseous or liquid fuels derived from renewable 
energy  and  renewable  hydrogen,  CO2  or  N2, and  can  play  an  important  role  for  ensuring  security  of  energy 
supply and the decarbonization of transport  services that cannot be electrified (maritime, aviation  and road 
transports as heavy-duty vehicles). For this scope, the Renewable Energy Directive (EU) 2023/2413 has specific 
production targets for RFNBO by 2030, and both Fuel EU Maritime and REFuel EU Aviation set further targets 
towards 2050. RFNBO have also an important role to supply renewable chemicals and fertilizers to reduce GHG 
emissions of industry and agricultural activities. 

The technologies for the production of RFNBO have advanced significantly in recent years, with Europe at the 
leading edge, driven by strong policy support and industrial capabilities. However, RFNBO production depends 
on  several  technologies  along  the  whole  value  chain  that  include  hydrogen  production,  carbon  capture  (or 
nitrogen  separation)  and  fuel  synthesis.  Large-scale  deployment  remains  still  limited,  primarily  due  to  high 
costs, high energy requirements and the need for robust infrastructure. Advancements in electrolysis, carbon 
capture  technology  and  renewable  energy  generation  could  quickly  ramp  up  the  RFNBO  production,  but 
upstream processes of hydrogen production and carbon capture still need to be developed at large scale for 
commercial production to reduce the production costs.  

Significant challenges remain. Achieving cost competitiveness with fossil fuels, overcoming certain technological 
barriers and building the required infrastructure are substantial challenges that must be addressed. Significant 
investment and innovation are needed to scale-up the technologies for widespread commercial use and cost-
competitiveness. A combination of policy incentives, technological advancements, and scaling efforts will be 
critical for RFNBOs to reach their full market potential.  

On the other hand, the opportunities offered by RFNBO are the creation of new value chains based on renewable 
hydrogen supply and carbon capture, the use of the existing fuel infrastructures for fuel distribution and use 
(since liquid and gaseous RFNBOs are mostly drop-in fuels, except alcohols), and the possibility to integrate bio-
based value chains for CO2 recovery.   

The  production  of  RFNBO  will  depend  on  the  availability  of  excess  renewable  electricity  and  its  price  when 
available. The high energy-intensive nature of RFNBO production means that scaling the technology will require 
massive investments in renewable energy. Other challenges for RFNBO market uptake include all the techno-
economic  aspects  related  to  the  limited  capacity  of  the  renewable  electricity  distribution  grid  to  integrate 
renewable  electricity  generation.  Moreoover,  the  slow-growing  carbon  capture  solutions  for  providing  (or 
capture) CO2 (fossil-based CO2 limited from 2041) or N2, the constraints in coupling such systems in providing 
stable  operation,  other  competing  markets  (e.g.  fertilizers)  and  the  environmental  aspects  (level  of  GHG 
emissions savings) are still aspects to address.  

The potential market for RFNBOs is substantial, driven by the need for sustainable energy solutions, in particular 
in sectors where alternatives are limited, such as hard-to-abate transports and heavy industry. The scenarios 
outlined by JRC’s POTEnCIA and POLES energy system models show a rapid increase in the production of RFNBO 
in the EU  starting from 2025, which could become a significant source of low-carbon fuel for the hard-to-
abate transport sectors, such as aviation and maritime.    

Overcoming cost and infrastructure barriers will be crucial for RFNBOs to meet their potential, but with continued 
technological advances and policy support, RFNBO are positioned to play a key role in Europe's decarbonization 
strategy across various hard-to-abate sectors. Although the full RFNBO value chain is not yet fully developed, 
Europe has the foundational industries and expertise to create a robust supply chain for RFNBO.   

49 

References 

Agora  Verkehrswende  and  PtX  Hub  (2024)  E-fuels:  Separating  the  substance  from  the  hype.  Berlin  (GER). 
Available 
https://www.agora-verkehrswende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2024/E-Fuels-EN/109_E-
fuels_Separating_the_substance_from_the_hype.pdf (Accessed: 16 September 2024). 

at: 

Al-Aboosi,  F.  Y.  et  al.  (2021)  ‘Renewable  ammonia  as  an  alternative  fuel  for  the  shipping  industry’,  Current 
Opinion in Chemical Engineering, 31, p. 100670. doi: 10.1016/J.COCHE.2021.100670. 

Alfonso  García  de  las  Heras  (2021)  POWER  TO  LIQUIDS  -PTL,  14th  Concawe  symposium.  Available  at: 
https://www.concawe.eu/wp-content/uploads/Session-2-Presentation-4-Alfonso-Garcia.pdf  (Accessed:  28  July 
2022). 

Altgelt,  F.  et  al. 
https://www.powerfuels.org/fileadmin/powerfuels.org/Dokumente/Water_Consumption_of_Powerfuels/202110
25_GAP_Discussion_Paper_Water_consumption_final.pdf (Accessed: 29 July 2022). 

(2021)  Water  Consumption  of  Powerfuels.  Berlin,  GER.  Available  at: 

AMF Annex 58 and IEA Bioenergy Task 41 (2020) The Role of Renewable Transport Fuels in Decarbonizing Road 
Transport: 
at: 
and 
https://www.ieabioenergy.com/blog/publications/new-publication-the-role-of-renewable-transport-fuels-in-
decarbonizing-road-transport/ (Accessed: 28 July 2022). 

Technologies 

Production 

Available 

Costs. 

Paris, 

FR. 

Atsbha, T. A. et al. (2021) ‘A review on the catalytic conversion of CO2 using H2 for synthesis of CO, methanol, 
and hydrocarbons’, Journal of CO2 Utilization, 44, p. 101413. doi: 10.1016/J.JCOU.2020.101413. 

Basu, P. (2018) ‘Production of Synthetic Fuels and Chemicals from Biomass’, Biomass Gasification, Pyrolysis 
and Torrefaction: Practical Design and Theory, pp. 415–443. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-812992-0.00012-1. 

BEST and IEA Bioenergy Task 39 (2022) Database on facilities for the production of advanced liquid and gaseous 
biofuels for transport. Available at: https://demoplants.best-research.eu/ (Accessed: 28 July 2022). 

Boretti, A. (2021) ‘Technology Readiness Level of Solar Thermochemical Splitting Cycles’,  ACS Energy Letters, 
6(4), pp. 1170–1174. doi: 10.1021/ACSENERGYLETT.1C00181/ASSET/IMAGES/MEDIUM/NZ1C00181_M015.GIF. 

Borole, A. P. and Greig, A. L. (2019) ‘Life-Cycle Assessment and Systems Analysis of Hydrogen Production’, in 
Biohydrogen, pp. 485–512. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-444-64203-5.00020-4. 

Brandão, M. et al. (2021) ‘The modelling approach determines the carbon footprint of biofuels: The role of LCA 
in informing decision makers in government and industry’, Cleaner Environmental Systems, 2, p. 100027. doi: 
10.1016/J.CESYS.2021.100027. 

Braun, M., Grimme, W. and Oesingmann, K. (2024) ‘Pathway to net zero: Reviewing sustainable aviation fuels, 
environmental  impacts  and  pricing’,  Journal  of  Air  Transport  Management,  117,  p.  102580.  doi: 
10.1016/J.JAIRTRAMAN.2024.102580. 

Bube, S. et al. (2024) ‘Kerosene production from power-based syngas – A technical comparison of the Fischer-
Tropsch and methanol pathway’, Fuel, 366, p. 131269. doi: 10.1016/J.FUEL.2024.131269. 

Buffi, M. et al. (2023) Clean Energy Technology Observatory: Renewable Fuels of Non-Biological Origin in the 
European Union – Status Report on Technology Development, Trends, Value Chains and Markets, Publications 
Office of the European Union. JRC130729. Brussels (BE). doi: 10.2760/76717. 

Buffi, M., Prussi, M. and Scarlat, N. (2022) ‘Energy and environmental assessment of hydrogen from biomass 
sources: 
doi: 
Challenges 
10.1016/J.BIOMBIOE.2022.106556. 

p.  106556. 

perspectives’, 

Bioenergy, 

Biomass 

165, 

and 

and 

Carbon  capture,  utilisation  and  storage  -  Fuels  &  Technologies  - 
https://www.iea.org/fuels-and-technologies/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage (Accessed: 28 July 2022). 

(2022).  Available  at: 

IEA 

Chakraborty,  J.  P.,  Singh,  S.  and  Maity,  S.  K.  (2022)  ‘Advances  in  the  conversion  of  methanol  to  gasoline’, 
Hydrocarbon  Biorefinery:  Sustainable  Processing  of  Biomass  for  Hydrocarbon  Biofuels,  pp.  177–200.  doi: 
10.1016/B978-0-12-823306-1.00008-X. 

Chauvy, R.  et al. (2020)  ‘Production of  synthetic natural gas from industrial carbon  dioxide’,  Applied Energy, 
260(July 2019), p. 114249. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114249. 

Chen, J. et al. (2019) ‘System development and environmental performance analysis of a pilot scale microbial 
electrolysis  cell  for  hydrogen  production  using  urban  wastewater’,  Energy  Conversion  and  Management, 

50 

193(February), pp. 52–63. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2019.04.060. 

Chiaramonti, D. (2019) ‘Sustainable Aviation Fuels: the challenge of decarbonization’, Energy Procedia, 158, pp. 
1202–1207. doi: 10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2019.01.308. 

Colelli,  L.  et  al.  (2023)  ‘E-fuels,  technical  and  economic  analysis  of  the  production  of  synthetic  kerosene 
precursor  as  sustainable  aviation  fuel’,  Energy  Conversion  and  Management,  288,  p.  117165.  doi: 
10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2023.117165. 

Dagle, R. A., Dagle, V. and Saavedra Lopez, J. (2020) Improved Value of the Gasoline and Fuel Oil Co-Product 
Fractions  Generated  by  the  PNNL/LanzaTech  Alcohol-to-Jet  Process  -  CRADA  394  (Final  Report).  Richland, 
Washington (US). Available at: https://www.ntis.gov/about (Accessed: 16 September 2024). 

Dai, Q. et al. (2016) Life cycle analysis of hydrogen production from Non-Fossil Sources, Technical report of 
Systems Assessment Group - Energy Systems Division. Argonne, IL, USA. doi: 10.3303/CET1021194. 

Dange, P. et al. (2021) ‘Recent developments in microbial electrolysis cell-based biohydrogen production utilizing 
wastewater as a feedstock’, Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(16), pp. 1–37. doi: 10.3390/su13168796. 

Dieterich, V. et al. (2020) ‘Power-to-liquid via synthesis of methanol, DME or Fischer–Tropsch-fuels: a review’, 
Energy Environ. Sci., 13(10), pp. 3207–3252. doi: 10.1039/D0EE01187H. 

Dincer, I. and Acar, C. (2015) ‘Review and evaluation of hydrogen production methods for better sustainability’, 
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 40(34), pp. 11094–11111. doi: 10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2014.12.035. 

(2024)  EU  competitiveness:  Looking  ahead 

Draghi,  M. 
https://commission.europa.eu/topics/strengthening-european-competitiveness/eu-competitiveness-looking-
ahead_en (Accessed: 12 September 2024). 

-  European  Commission.  Available  at: 

Dutta, S. (2021) ‘Review on Solar Hydrogen: Its Prospects and Limitations’, Energy Fuels, 35, pp. 11613–11639. 
doi: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00823. 

Van Dyk, S. and Saddler, J. (2024) Progress in Commercialization of Biojet /Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF): 
Technologies  and  policies.  Vancouver  (Canada).  Available  at:  https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2023-
releases/2023-06-04-03/ (Accessed: 17 September 2024). 

Elbaz, A. M. et al. (2022) ‘Review on the recent advances on ammonia combustion from the fundamentals to 
the applications’, Fuel Communications, 10, p. 100053. doi: 10.1016/J.JFUECO.2022.100053. 

Energy.gov  (2024)  First  Ethanol  Alcohol-to-Jet  Sustainable  Aviation  Fuel  Production  Facility  Unveiled!  | 
Department  of  Energy.  Available  at:  https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/articles/first-ethanol-alcohol-jet-
sustainable-aviation-fuel-production-facility (Accessed: 16 September 2024). 

Bioenergy  website 

ETIP 
https://www.etipbioenergy.eu/supporting-initiatives-and-platforms/related-european-technology-platforms-
and-jtis/etp-overview (Accessed: 16 September 2024). 

overview. 

Available 

(2024) 

ETIPs 

ETPs 

and 

an 

- 

at: 

European Biogas Association (EBA) (2024) Mapping e-methane plants and technologies. Brussels (BE). Available 
at: 
https://www.europeanbiogas.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Mapping-e-methane-plants-and-
technologies.pdf. 

European  Commission  (2024)  Renewable  hydrogen:  detailed  rules  on  the  EU  definition  of  hydrogen  and 
hydrogen-based 
fuels  as  RFNBO.  Available  at:  https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-systems-
integration/hydrogen/renewable-hydrogen_en (Accessed: 18 September 2024). 

European  Commission  (EC)  (2022)  EU 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_4402 (Accessed: 28 July 2022). 

invests  €1.8  billion 

in  clean  tech  projects.  Available  at: 

European Commission website (2024) Voluntary schemes: standards for the production of sustainable fuels and 
gases.  Available  at:  https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/renewable-energy/bioenergy/voluntary-schemes_en 
(Accessed: 17 September 2024). 

European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  the  European  Union  (2018)  ‘DIRECTIVE  (EU)  2018/2001  on  the 
promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (recast)’, OJ L 328, 21.12.2018. Brussels (BE), pp. 82–
209. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/2001/oj. 

European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  the  European  Union  (2023a)  ‘Directive  (EU)  2023/2413  amending 
Directive  (EU)  2018/2001,  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1999  and  Directive  98/70/EC  as  regards  the  promotion  of 

51 

energy  from  renewable  sources’,  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union.  Brussels  (BE).  Available  at: 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2023/2413/oj. 

European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2023b) ‘Regulation (EU) 2023/1805 on the use of 
renewable  and  low-carbon  fuels  in  maritime  transport,  and  amending  Directive  2009/16/EC  (Text  with  EEA 
relevance) - EUR-Lex’. Brussels (BE). Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1805/oj (Accessed: 18 
September 2024). 

European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2023c) ‘Regulation (EU) 2023/2405 on ensuring 
a  level  playing  field  for  sustainable  air transport  (ReFuelEU  Aviation)  -  EUR-lex’.  Brussels (BE).  Available  at: 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2405/oj. 

European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  the  European  Union  (2023d)  ‘Regulation  (EU)  2023/851  amending 
Regulation  (EU)  2019/631  as  regards  strengthening  the  CO2  emission  performance  standards  for  new 
passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles in line with the Union’s increased climate ambition  - EUR-
Lex’.  Brussels 
(BE).  Available  at:  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32023R0851 
(Accessed: 18 September 2024). 

European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2023e) ‘Regulation (EU) 2024/1610 amending 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1242 as regards strengthening the CO2 emission performance standards for new heavy-
duty  vehicles  and  integrating  reporting  obligations,  amending  Regulation  (EU)  2018/858  and  repealing 
Regulation 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401610. 

Available 

Brussels 

(EU)’. 

(BE). 

at: 

European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2024) ‘Regulation (EU) 2024/1735 on establishing 
a  framework  of  measures  for  strengthening  Europe’s  net-zero  technology  manufacturing  ecosystem  and 
amending  Regulation 
the  European  Union.  Available  at: 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1735/oj (Accessed: 7 August 2024). 

(EU)  2018/1724’,  Official  Journal  of 

European Union Aviation Safety Agency (2024) European Aviation Environmental Report: Current landscape and 
future  of  SAF 
industry.  Available  at:  https://www.easa.europa.eu/eco/eaer/topics/sustainable-aviation-
fuels/current-landscape-future-saf-industry#production-capacity-and-demand-2020-to-2030  (Accessed:  12 
September 2024). 

De Falco, M. et al. (2022) ‘Exergetic Analysis of DME Synthesis from CO2 and Renewable Hydrogen’, Energies, 
15(3516), p. 20. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.3390/en15103516. 

Galimova, T. et al. (2023) ‘Global trading of renewable electricity-based fuels and chemicals to enhance the 
energy transition across all sectors towards sustainability’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 183, p. 
113420. doi: 10.1016/J.RSER.2023.113420. 

Geleynse,  S.  et  al.  (2018)  ‘The  Alcohol-to-Jet  Conversion  Pathway  for  Drop-In  Biofuels:  Techno-Economic 
Evaluation’, ChemSusChem, 11(21), pp. 3728–3741. doi: 10.1002/CSSC.201801690. 

Ghaib, K., Nitz, K. and Ben-Fares, F. Z. (2016) ‘Chemical Methanation of CO2: A Review’, ChemBioEng Reviews, 
3(6), pp. 266–275. doi: 10.1002/CBEN.201600022. 

Gorre, J., Ortloff, F. and van Leeuwen, C. (2019) ‘Production costs for synthetic methane in 2030 and 2050 of 
an optimized Power-to-Gas plant with intermediate hydrogen  storage’,  Applied Energy, 253, p. 113594. doi: 
10.1016/J.APENERGY.2019.113594. 

Green Car Congress (2021) PNNL, OSU, Lanzatech improving efficiency and cost of ethanol-to-jet process. 

Green Car Congress website (2022) Twelve and LanzaTech successfully convert CO2 to ethanol. Available at: 
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/03/20220304-12.html (Accessed: 28 July 2022). 

Guil-López,  R.  et  al.  (2019)  ‘Methanol  Synthesis  from  CO  2:  A  Review  of  the  Latest  Developments  in 
Heterogeneous Catalysis’, Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 12(23), p. 3902. doi: 10.3390/MA12233902. 

Guteša Božo, M. et al. (2019) ‘Fuel rich ammonia-hydrogen injection for humidified gas turbines’, Applied Energy, 
251. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113334. 

(2022) 

Topsoe 

at: 
Haldor 
Produce 
to 
https://info.topsoe.com/ecos?utm_term=co2 
co&utm_campaign=Product:+eCOs&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=6221996167&hsa_n
et=adwords&hsa_cam=860487084&hsa_ad=287607879826&hsa_kw=co2 
to 
co&hsa_grp=54484433242&hsa_mt=b&hsa_ver=3&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt (Accessed: 29 July 2022). 

monoxide. 

Available 

carbon 

your 

own 

52 

Harmon, L. et al. (2017) A Hybrid Catalytic Route to Fuels from Biomass Syngas. Golden, CO (United States). doi: 
10.2172/1423741. 

Hurtig, O. et al. (2023) Clean Energy Technology Observatory: Advanced biofuels in the European Union – Status 
Report  on  Technology  Development,  Trends,  Value  Chains  and  Markets,  Publications  Office  of  the  European 
Union. JRC130727. Brussels (BE). doi: 10.2760/938743. 

HY2GEN (2022) 200 MIO. € INVESTMENT IN GREEN HYDROGEN PIONEER. 

Imhoff, T. B., Gkantonas, S. and Mastorakos, E. (2021) ‘Analysing the Performance of Ammonia Powertrains in 
the Marine Environment’, Energies 2021, Vol. 14, Page 7447, 14(21), p. 7447. doi: 10.3390/EN14217447. 

International Energy Agency (IEA) (2021a) Net Zero by 2050 - A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector. Paris 
(France). Available at: www.iea.org/t&c/ (Accessed: 18 September 2024). 

International Energy Agency (IEA) (2021b) The Role of Low-Carbon Fuels in the Clean Energy Transitions of the 
Power Sector – Analysis. Paris, FR. Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-low-carbon-fuels-in-the-
clean-energy-transitions-of-the-power-sector (Accessed: 28 July 2022). 

International  Energy  Agency  (IEA)  (2023)  Tracking  Clean  Energy  Progress  –  Analysis  -  IEA.  Available  at: 
https://www.iea.org/reports/tracking-clean-energy-progress-2023 (Accessed: 12 September 2024). 

International Energy Agency (IEA) (2024) The Role of E-fuels in Decarbonising Transport. Paris (France). Available 
at: 
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/a24ed363-523f-421b-b34f-0df6a58b2e12/TheRoleofE-
fuelsinDecarbonisingTransport.pdf (Accessed: 12 September 2024). 

International  Organization  for  Standardization  (2023)  ‘ISO/TS  19870:2023  -  Hydrogen  technologies  — 
Methodology for determining the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production, conditioning and 
transport of hydrogen to consumption gate’. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/65628.html (Accessed: 
18 September 2024). 

International  Organization  for  Standardization  (2024)  ISO/TC  197  -  Hydrogen  technologies.  Available  at: 
https://www.iso.org/committee/54560.html (Accessed: 18 September 2024). 

IRENA and AEA (2022) Innovation Outlook: Renewable Ammonia, Innovation Outlook: Renewable Ammonia. Abu 
Dhabi  (UAE),  Brooklyn  (USA).  Available  at:  https://www.irena.org/publications/2022/May/Innovation-Outlook-
Renewable-Ammonia. 

IRENA and Methanol Institute (2021) Innovation Outlook: Renewable Methanol. Abu Dhabi (UAE). Available at: 
/publications/2021/Jan/Innovation-Outlook-Renewable-Methanol (Accessed: 13 September 2022). 

ISO (2023) ISO/CD 6583. 

Jahangiri,  H.  et  al.  (2014)  ‘A  review  of  advanced  catalyst  development  for  Fischer–Tropsch  synthesis  of 
hydrocarbons  from  biomass  derived  syn-gas’,  Catalysis  Science  &  Technology,  4(8),  pp.  2210–2229.  doi: 
10.1039/C4CY00327F. 

Jarvis, S. M. and Samsatli, S. (2018) ‘Technologies and infrastructures underpinning future CO2 value chains: A 
comprehensive review and comparative analysis’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 85, pp. 46–68. 
doi: 10.1016/J.RSER.2018.01.007. 

Jeerh, G., Zhang, M. and Tao, S. (2021) ‘Recent progress in ammonia fuel cells and their potential applications’, 
Journal of Materials Chemistry A, 9(2), pp. 727–752. doi: 10.1039/D0TA08810B. 

Jiang, M. et al. (2024) ‘Numerical study of the combustion process and NOx evolution mechanism of ammonia-
hydrogen  compound  fuel  engine  under  different  intake  conditions’,  Journal  of  the  Energy  Institute,  116,  p. 
101759. doi: 10.1016/J.JOEI.2024.101759. 

Kadier,  A.  et al.  (2014)  ‘A  review  of  the  substrates used  in  microbial  electrolysis cells  (MECs)  for  producing 
sustainable and clean hydrogen gas’, Renewable Energy, 71, pp. 466–472. doi: 10.1016/J.RENENE.2014.05.052. 

Keil, F. J. (1999) ‘Methanol-to-hydrocarbons: process technology’, Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 29(1–
2), pp. 49–66. doi: 10.1016/S1387-1811(98)00320-5. 

Klüssmann, J. N. et al. (2020) A Report from the Advanced Motor Fuels Technology Collaboration Programme: 
https://iea-
Ammonia 
amf.org/app/webroot/files/file/other  publications/Ammonia  Application  in  IC  Engines.pdf  (Accessed:  12 
September 2024). 

Copenhagen 

Application 

(Denmark). 

Available 

Engines. 

at: 

IC 

in 

53 

Küngas, R. (2020) ‘ Review—Electrochemical CO 2 Reduction for CO Production: Comparison of Low- and High-
Temperature  Electrolysis  Technologies  ’,  Journal  of  The  Electrochemical  Society,  167(4),  p.  044508.  doi: 
10.1149/1945-7111/ab7099. 

Lindorfer, J. et al. (2019) ‘Hydrogen fuel, fuel cells, and methane’, Managing Global Warming: An Interface of 
Technology and Human Issues, pp. 419–453. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-814104-5.00014-4. 

Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH (LBST) and Hinicio S.A. (2015) Study on hydrogen from renewable sources 
in the EU. Brussels, BE. Available at: https://www.fch.europa.eu/sites/default/files/GHyP-Final-Report_2015-07-
08_5 %28ID 2849171%29.pdf (Accessed: 28 July 2022). 

Macknick,  J.  et  al.  (2012)  ‘Operational  water  consumption  and  withdrawal  factors  for  electricity  generating 
technologies:  A  review  of  existing  litreature’,  Environmental  Research  Letters,  7(4).  doi:  10.1088/1748-
9326/7/4/045802. 

Madejski,  P.  et  al.  (2022)  ‘Methods  and  Techniques  for  CO2  Capture:  Review  of  Potential  Solutions  and 
Applications in Modern Energy Technologies’, Energies, 15(887), p. 21. doi: doi.org/10.3390/en15030887. 

Mahmoudi, H. et al. (2017) ‘A review of Fischer Tropsch synthesis process, mechanism, surface chemistry and 
catalyst formulation’, Biofuels Engineering, 2(1), pp. 11–31. doi: 10.1515/bfuel-2017-0002. 

Manish, S. and Banerjee, R. (2008) ‘Comparison of biohydrogen production processes’, International Journal of 
Hydrogen Energy, 33(1), pp. 279–286. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2007.07.026. 

Martinez Castilla, G. et al. (2024) Clean Energy Technology Observatory, Carbon capture utilisation and storage 
in the European Union – Status report on technology development, trends, value chains and markets – 2024. 
Luxembourg (Luxembourg): Publications Office of the European Union. doi: doi/10.2760/0287566. 

Mehmeti, A. et al. (2018) ‘Life cycle assessment and water footprint of hydrogen production methods:  From 
conventional 
doi: 
to 
10.3390/environments5020024. 

Environments 

technologies’, 

-  MDPI, 

emerging 

1–19. 

5(2), 

pp. 

Mekonnen,  M.  M.,  Gerbens-Leenes,  P.  W.  and  Hoekstra,  A.  Y.  (2015)  ‘The  consumptive  water  footprint  of 
electricity  and  heat:  a  global  assessment’,  Environ.  Sci.:  Water  Res.  Technol.,  1,  p.  285.  doi: 
10.1039/c5ew00026b. 

Meldrum, J.,  Heath, G. and Macknick, J. (2013) ‘Life  cycle  water use for electricity generation : a review and 
harmonization  of 
litreature  estimates’,  Environmental  Research  Letters,  8.  doi:  10.1088/1748-
9326/8/1/015031. 

Mi, Z. and Sick, V. (2020) ‘Taking a Shortcut: Direct Power-to-X Conversion’, Frontiers in Energy Research, 8, p. 
153. doi: 10.3389/FENRG.2020.00153/BIBTEX. 

Mishnaevsky, L. et al. (2017) ‘Materials for Wind Turbine Blades: An Overview’, Materials 2017, Vol. 10, Page 
1285, 10(11), p. 1285. doi: 10.3390/MA10111285. 

Moriarty, K. and Mccormick, R. (2023) Sustainable Aviation Fuel Blending and Logistics. NREL/TP-5400-90979. 
Available at: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/90979.pdf (Accessed: 17 September 2024). 

Nagy, V. et al. (2018) ‘Water-splitting-based, sustainable and efficient H2 production in green algae as achieved 
by substrate limitation of the Calvin-Benson-Bassham cycle’, Biotechnology for Biofuels, 11(1), pp. 1–16. doi: 
10.1186/S13068-018-1069-0/FIGURES/7. 

Our Technology | Norsk e-Fuel (2022). 

Ozkan, M. et al. (2024) ‘Forging a sustainable sky: Unveiling the pillars of aviation e-fuel production for carbon 
emission circularity’, iScience, 27(3), p. 109154. doi: 10.1016/J.ISCI.2024.109154. 

Panoutsou, C. et al. (2021) ‘Advanced biofuels to decarbonise European transport by 2030: Markets, challenges, 
and policies that impact their successful market uptake’, Energy Strategy Reviews, 34(January), p. 100633. doi: 
10.1016/j.esr.2021.100633. 

Pérez-fortes, M. and Tzimas, E. (2016) Techno-economic and environmental evaluation of CO 2 utilisation for 
fuel production. doi: 10.2790/89238. 

Pirola, C., Bozzano, G. and Manenti, F. (2018) ‘Fossil or Renewable Sources for Methanol Production?’, Methanol: 
Science and Engineering, pp. 53–93. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-63903-5.00003-0. 

Prussi,  M.  et  al.  (2020)  JEC  Well-to-Tank  report  v5  |  EUR  30269  EN  |  JRC119036.  Luxembourg.  doi: 

54 

10.2760/959137. 

Putrasari, Y. and Lim, O. (2022) ‘Dimethyl Ether as the Next Generation Fuel to Control Nitrogen Oxides and 
Particulate Matter Emissions from Internal Combustion Engines: A Review’,  ACS Omega, 7(1), pp. 32–37. doi: 
10.1021/acsomega.1c03885. 

Ram, M. et al. (2020) Powerfuels in a Renewable Energy World - Global volumes, costs, and trading 2030 to 
2050. Berlin, GER. Available at: www.dena.de. 

renewablesnow.com (2022) Twelve, LanzaTech collaborate on turning CO2 into ethanol. 

Rouwenhorst,  K.  H.  R.,  Travis,  A.  S.  and  Lefferts,  L.  (2022)  ‘1921–2021:  A  Century  of  Renewable  Ammonia 
Synthesis’, Sustainable Chemistry, 3(2), pp. 149–171. doi: 10.3390/suschem3020011. 

S&P  Global  (2024)  Orsted  scraps  Swedish  FlagshipONE  emethanol  project under  development  |  S&P  Global 
Commodity  Insights.  Available  at:  https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-
news/energy-transition/081524-orsted-scraps-swedish-flagshipone-e-methanol-project-under-development 
(Accessed: 17 October 2024). 

Sadeghi,  S.,  Ghandehariun,  S.  and  Rosen,  M.  A.  (2020)  ‘Comparative  economic  and  life  cycle  assessment  of 
industries’,  Energy,  208,  p.  118347.  doi: 
solar-based  hydrogen  production 
10.1016/J.ENERGY.2020.118347. 

for  oil  and  gas 

Salmon, N. and Bañares-Alcántara, R. (2021) ‘Green ammonia as a spatial energy vector: a review’, Sustainable 
Energy & Fuels, 5(11), pp. 2814–2839. doi: 10.1039/D1SE00345C. 

Saravanan, A. et al. (2021) ‘A comprehensive review on different approaches for CO2 utilization and conversion 
pathways’, Chemical Engineering Science, 236, p. 116515. doi: 10.1016/j.ces.2021.116515. 

Scarlat Nicolae et al. (2019) ‘Brief on biomass for energy in the European Union’, EC publication, pp. 1–8. doi: 
10.2760/546943. 

Schmidt, P. et al. (2018) ‘Power-to-Liquids as Renewable Fuel Option for Aviation: A Review’, Chemie Ingenieur 
Technik, 90(1–2), pp. 127–140. doi: 10.1002/CITE.201700129. 

Schmidt,  P.  R.  et  al.  (2023)  E-SAF:  Techno-Economics  of  PtL  and  PtH2  Focus  North  America  and  Europe. 
Ottobrunn/Munich 
https://lbst.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/DA_E-
at: 
SAF_Report_final_2023_12_04.pdf (Accessed: 12 September 2024). 

(Germany). 

Available 

Schmidt,  P.  and  Weindorf,  W.  (2016)  Power-to-Liquids  Potentials  and  Perspectives  for  the  Future  Supply  of 
at: 
Renewable 
https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/publikationen/ (Accessed: 28 June 2022). 

Dessau-Roßlau, 

Germany. 

Available 

Aviation 

Fuel. 

Schorn, F. et al. (2021) ‘Methanol as a renewable energy carrier: An assessment of production and transportation 
costs 
in  Applied  Energy,  3,  p.  100050.  doi: 
10.1016/J.ADAPEN.2021.100050. 

locations’,  Advances 

selected  global 

for 

Schuller, O., Bopp, J. and Rapp, J. (2024) 1st Life Cycle GHG Emission Study on the Use of Ammonia as Marine 
Fuel - produced for SGMF. Stuttgart (Germany). Available at: https://sphera.com/resources/report/1st-life-cycle-
ghg-emission-study-on-the-use-of-ammonia-as-marine-fuel/ (Accessed: 12 September 2024). 

Sebos, I. (2022) ‘Fossil fraction of CO2 emissions of biofuels’, Carbon Management, 13(1), pp. 154–163. doi: 
10.1080/17583004.2022.2046173. 

Sia Partners (2024) International e-fuels Observatory: the global race for e-fuels is on. Paris (France). Available 
at:  https://www.sia-partners.com/system/files/document_download/file/2024-02/International  Observatory  of 
E-fuels 2024_0.pdf (Accessed: 17 September 2024). 

Soler, A. et al. (2022) E-Fuels: A techno-economic assessment of European domestic production and imports 
towards  2050 
(BE).  Available  at:  https://www.concawe.eu/wp-
content/uploads/Rpt_22-17.pdf. 

(Concawe  Report  17/22).  Brussels 

Soler, A. et al. (2024) E-Fuels: A techno-economic assessment of European domestic production and imports 
towards  2050-Update  (Concawe  Report  24-4-1).  Brussels  (BE).  Available  at:  https://www.concawe.eu/wp-
content/uploads/Rpt_24-4-1.pdf (Accessed: 12 September 2024). 

Soler, A. and Yugo, M. (2020) Role of e-fuels in the European transport system - Litreature review - Report no. 
14/19.  Brussels,  BE.  Available  at:  https://www.concawe.eu/publication/role-of-e-fuels-in-the-european-

55 

transport-system-litreature-review/. 

Steynberg, A. and Dry, M. (2004) Fischer-Tropsch technology. Elsevier. 

Styring, P., Dowson, G. R. M. and Tozer, I. O. (2021) ‘Synthetic Fuels Based on Dimethyl Ether as a Future Non-
Fossil Fuel for Road Transport From Sustainable Feedstocks’, Frontiers in Energy Research, 9(May), pp. 1–22. 
doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2021.663331. 

Svanberg, M. et al. (2018) ‘Renewable methanol as a fuel for the shipping industry’, Renewable and Sustainable 
Energy Reviews, 94(March), pp. 1217–1228. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.058. 

Tan, C. H. et al. (2022) ‘Current Developments in Catalytic Methanation of Carbon Dioxide—A Review’, Frontiers 
in Energy Research, 9, p. 1031. doi: 10.3389/FENRG.2021.795423/BIBTEX. 

Taylor,  N.,  Tattini,  J.  and  Diaz  Rincon,  A.  (2023)  Clean  Energy  Technology  Observatory:  Solar  Fuels  in  the 
European  Union  -  2023  Status  Report  on  Technology  Development,  Trends,  Value  Chains  and  Markets. 
Luxembourg (Luxembourg): Publications Office of the European Union. doi: 10.2760/753483 (online). 

The European Commission (EC) (2024) New monitoring rules agreed for the EU ETS, including non-CO₂ emissions 
from the aviation sector. Available at: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/news-your-voice/news/new-monitoring-rules-
agreed-eu-ets-including-non-co2-emissions-aviation-sector-2024-08-30_en (Accessed: 18 September 2024). 

(2024)  G2LTM  eFuels  technology 

Topsoe 
|  Process 
https://www.topsoe.com/our-resources/knowledge/our-products/process-licensing/g2ltm-efuels-technology 
(Accessed: 16 September 2024). 

|  Products 

|  Topsoe.  Available  at: 

licensing 

Transport & Environment (2024a) e-Fuels observatory for shipping - Briefing May 2024. Brussels (BE). Available 
at: 
https://www.transportenvironment.org/uploads/files/e-fuels-Observatory-for-shipping_briefing.pdf 
(Accessed: 17 September 2024). 

Transport & Environment (2024b) e-kerosene observatory: The challenges of scaling up e-kerosene production 
in  Europe.  Brussels 
(BE).  Available  at:  https://www.transportenvironment.org/uploads/files/2024_01_E-
kerosene_Tracker_TE_2024-04-29-155012_cevi.pdf (Accessed: 12 September 2024). 

US eia (2022) Biofuels and the environment - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 

Valera-Medina, A. et al. (2021) ‘Review on ammonia as a potential fuel: From synthesis to economics’, Energy 
and 
doi: 
35(9), 
10.1021/ACS.ENERGYFUELS.0C03685/ASSET/IMAGES/MEDIUM/EF0C03685_0038.GIF. 

6964–7029. 

Fuels, 

pp. 

Vaz, S., Rodrigues de Souza, A. P. and Lobo Baeta, B. E. (2022) ‘Technologies for carbon dioxide capture: A review 
applied 
doi: 
10.1016/J.CLET.2022.100456. 

Technology,  8, 

p.  100456. 

Engineering 

sectors’, 

Cleaner 

energy 

and 

to 

Verhelst,  S.  et  al.  (2019)  ‘Methanol  as  a  fuel  for  internal  combustion  engines’,  Progress  in  Energy  and 
Combustion Science, 70, pp. 43–88. doi: 10.1016/J.PECS.2018.10.001. 

Walczak, K. A., Hutchins, M. J. and Dornfeld, D. (2014) ‘Energy System Design to Maximize Net Energy Production 
Considering Uncertainty in Scale-up: A Case Study in Artificial Photosynthesis’, Procedia CIRP, 15, pp. 306–312. 
doi: 10.1016/J.PROCIR.2014.06.032. 

Weindorf, W. et al. (2019) REPORT ON MARKET AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INTELLIGENCE FOR ADVANCED 
ALTERNATIVE 
at: 
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC118306/jrc118306_1.pdf. 

Ottobrunn, 

Germany. 

Available 

FUELS. 

Yarulina, I. et al. (2018) ‘Recent trends and fundamental  insights in the methanol-to-hydrocarbons process’, 
Nature Catalysis 2018 1:6, 1(6), pp. 398–411. doi: 10.1038/s41929-018-0078-5. 

Yue,  M.  et  al.  (2021)  ‘Hydrogen  energy  systems:  A  critical  review  of  technologies,  applications,  trends  and 
challenges’, 
doi: 
Renewable 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111180. 

Sustainable 

Reviews, 

111180. 

Energy 

146, 

and 

p. 

Yugo, M. and Soler, A. (2019) A look into the role of e-fuels in the transport system in Europe (2030–2050). 
Concawe  Review  Volume  28  -  Number  1.  Brussels  (BE).  Available  at:  https://www.concawe.eu/wp-
content/uploads/E-fuels-article.pdf. 

56 

 
 
List of abbreviations and definitions 

AEL  

Alkaline Electrolysis  

CCS/CCU/CCSU  

Carbon Capture and Storage, Utilization 

DAC  

DME  

FT  

HB  

HDVs 

LNG  

Direct Air Capture 

DiMethyl Ether 

Fischer-Tropsch  

Haber-Bosch 

Heavy Duty Vehicles  

Liquefied Natural Gas 

MCEC/MEC  

Molten Carbonate Electrolyser Cells  

MEC  

OME  

Microbial Electrolysis Cell  

OxyMethylene Ether 

PEMEL/PMEL  

Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Electrolysis  

POLES-JRC 

Prospective Outlook on Long term Energy Systems 

POTEnCIA 

Policy Oriented Tool for Energy and Climate Change Impact Assessment 

PtG  

PtL  

PtX  

PV  

RED  

Power-to-Gas  

Power-to-Liquid  

Power-to-Fuel 

PhotoVoltaic 

Renewable Energy Directive  

RFNBO  

Renewable Fuel of Non-Biological Origin 

SMR  

SNG  

Steam Methane Reforming 

Synthetic Natural Gas 

SOEL/SOC  

Solid Oxide Electrolysis/Cells  

TRL  

VC 

Technology Readiness Level 

Ventur Capital 

WEEE  

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive  

57 

WTT  

Well-To-Tank 

58 

 
 
List of figures 

Figure 1. Production pathway from renewable feedstock (bottom) to RFNBO (top). ............................................................6 

Figure 2. Elaboration of the investigated pathways. . ........................................................................................................................... 12 

Figure 3. Scheme of MEC operation starting from organic matter to electricity production (Kadier et al., 2014)
 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 
Figure 4. FT-fuels production from electricity and carbon capture (Alfonso García de las Heras, 2021). ........... 23 

Figure 5. RFNBO installed capacity (left) and production (right) in the EU under the POTEnCIA CETO 2024 
Scenario, 2025-2050. .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 27 

Figure 6. Global synfuel production (considering only e-fuels) under the Global CETO 2°C scenario 2024 of 
the POLES-JRC model ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 
Figure 7.  E-ammonia planned capacity in Europe  ................................................................................................................................. 30 

Figure 8. E-kerosene planned capacity in the EEA per advancement stage compared with ReFuelEU blending 
mandates ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 32 
Figure 9. Costs of e-fuels produced inside Europe by zone in 2030 (N: North EU; C: Central EU; S: South EU) 34 

Figure 10. Synfuels global overnight investment cost and production ...................................................................................... 37 

Figure 11. Public R&D financing country level 2021 ............................................................................................................................. 41 

Figure 12. RFNBO VC/PE investment by region ......................................................................................................................................... 43 

Figure 13. VC/PE investment in top 10 beneficiary countries, by period for all deals (top), early-stage deals 
(bottom left) and later-stage deals (bottom right).................................................................................................................................... 44 
Figure 14. RFNBO publications ............................................................................................................................................................................. 45 

Figure 15. RFNBO global publications of highly cited papers 2010-2022 .............................................................................. 46 

Figure 16. RFNBO EU countries publications with share of highly cited papers 2010-2022 ...................................... 46 

Figure 17. RFNBO global publication cluster 2010-2022 ................................................................................................................... 47 

Figure 18. RFNBO European publication cluster 2010-2022............................................................................................................ 47 

Figure 19. The POTEnCIA model at a glance ............................................................................................................................................... 71 

Figure 20. Schematic representation of the POLES-JRC model architecture. ........................................................................ 73 

59 

 
 
List of tables 

Table 1. CETO SWOT analysis for the competitiveness of RFNBO. ....................................................................................................8 

Table 2. TRL analysis for adsorption, absorption, membrane separation and chemical capture technologies 
(Carbon capture, utilisation and storage - Fuels & Technologies - IEA, 2022; Vaz, Rodrigues de Souza and Lobo 
Baeta, 2022). ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 
Table 3. Main KPIs for the Sabatier’ reaction for methanation. ...................................................................................................... 16 

Table 4. Technical parameters methanation using renewable Hydrogen ................................................................................. 17 

Table 5. Electricity and hydrogen demand in the production of ammonia and methanol. ............................................ 18 

Table 6. Technical parameters e-ammonia production ........................................................................................................................ 19 

Table 7. Main technical specifications and KPIs for the hydrogenation to methanol. ....................................................... 20 

Table 8. Technical parameters e-methanol production (for industrial production) ............................................................. 21 

Table 9. Main KPIs for the Fischer-Tropsch’ reaction for liquid fuels production (Jarvis and Samsatli, 2018). 22 

Table 10. E-fuels plants available and planned today in EU according to IEA Bioenergy and ETIP databases. 26 

Table 11. E-Ammonia supply and demand projections ........................................................................................................................ 31 

Table 12. Costs of e-fuels produced in Europe in 2020, in 2030, in 2050 ............................................................................. 35 

Table 13. E-fuel production costs: CAPEX and OMEX overview for the e-fuel synthesis plants in Europe .......... 36 

Table 14. Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe projects on RFNBO. ................................................................................................. 38 

60 

 
 
 
Annexes 

61 

 
 
Annex 1 Sustainability Assessment Framework 

Parameter/Indicator 

Input 

Environmental 

LCA standards, PEFCR or 
best practice, LCI 
databases  

GHG emissions 

Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) are commonly used to quantify the GHG 
emissions savings of bioenergy, by comparing the bioenergy system with a 
reference (fossil) energy system following a life cycle approach. The 
utilization of by-products that can displace other materials, having GHG and 
energy implications, must also be considered in the analysis.  

Several LCA models are available for GHG emission estimation, such as 
Biograce, E3 Database in Europe, the Argonne National Laboratory GREET 
model in the US and the GHGenius model in Canada. LCA requires large 
amounts of data on a specific product or service for assessing the complete 
supply chain. The wide range of results of LCA studies occurred depending on 
the data that are generally valid for certain regions and conditions. Several 
LCA databases for the GHG and energy balance of bioenergy systems are 
available worldwide, such as ECOINVENT, ELCD (European reference Life 
Cycle Database), GEMIS (Global Emission Model for Integrated Systems), 
CPM LCA Database or US Life Cycle Inventory Database (LCI) from NREL 
(Scarlat Nicolae et al., 2019).   

In EU, the overarching legislation setting the LCA rules of the sector is the 
RED II, which provides the methodology for assessing greenhouse gas 
emissions savings from renewable liquid and gaseous transport fuels of 
non-biological origin and from recycled carbon fuels. Captured and used CO2 
can receive a credit for avoided emissions if it had not already received other 
credits before. To ensure that renewable fuels of non-biological origin 
contribute to greenhouse gas reduction, the electricity used should be of 
renewable origin. For this scope, another, parallel delegated act on hydrogen 
sets the guidelines for temporal and geographical correlations between the 
electricity production and the fuel production. The  delegated act also 
provides updated input data as the carbon intensity of raw materials, 
reagents, fossil-fuels, etc. At international level, ISO developed integrating 
rules for hydrogen into their LCA standards (International Organization for 
Standardization, 2023), and a special task force is still working to improve 
such guidelines (International Organization for Standardization, 2024). 

According to RED II, the greenhouse gas emissions savings from the use of 
renewable liquid and gaseous transport fuels of non-biological origin shall be 
at least 70 % from 1 January 2021 compared to the fossil fuel comparator 
(94 gCO2e/MJ). During 2023, the Commission published a specific delegated 
act setting a specific methodology to calculate the GHG emissions for 
RFNBO, therefore the carbon intensity of such fuels (in terms of actual 
values) can be calculated by the stakeholders. To certify such fuels for trade 
and legislation targets, the EC recently pre-approved specific voluntary 
schemes covering the certification of the whole supply chain (European 

62 

 
  
  
Commission website, 2024). Some calculations of the GHG emissions has 
been performed by the JRC (WTT v5) (Prussi et al., 2020) for a large number 
of for renewable fuels of non biological origin pathways. However, it is worth 
to mention that JECv5 methodology differs from the RED II methodology in 
some aspects described in the report. The GHG emissions for a selection of 
pathways is presented in the next: 

GHG footprint for RFNBO [g CO2eq/MJ] 

Syndiesel from renewable electricity, CO2 from flue gas: 0.8 - 0.9 g CO2eq/MJ 

Syndiesel from renewable electricity via FT route, CO2 from flue gas: 0.76 - 
0.78 g CO2eq/MJ 

Syndiesel from renewable electricity via FT route, CO2 from biogas 
upgrading: 0.8 - 0.8 g CO2eq/MJ 

Syndiesel from renewable electricity via FT route, CO2 from air via TSA: 0.8 - 
0.8 g CO2eq/MJ 

MeOH from renewable electricity, CO2 from flue gas: 1.78 - 1.82 g CO2eq/MJ 

DME from renewable electricity, CO2 from flue gas: 1.7 g CO2eq/MJ 

OME from renewable electricity, CO2 from flue gas: 1.85 g CO2eq/MJ 

SNG from renewable electricity and CO2 from flue gas: 1.7 - 3.0 g CO2eq/MJ 

SynLNG from renewable electricity, CO2 from biogas upgrading: 6.7 - 6.7 g 
CO2eq/MJ 

Another recent paper from the JRC authors also provides other figures as 
regards e-fuels produced with DACs (Rocio Gonzales, 2023). Recently, 
Concawe proposed new calculations using the JEC methodology observing an 
average reduction of the carbon intensity of e-fuels (Soler et al., 2024). 
Specifically, while JEC WTW study assumes that hydrogen liquefaction is 
powered by grid electricity, Concawe considers renewable energy only, while 
grid power is still utilized for processes such as compression and dispensing. 
Additionally, the JEC WTW study assumes hydrogen is transported at a 
pressure of 35 MPa, contrary to the 50 MPa considered by Concawe, 
influencing the volume of hydrogen transportable, along with its related GHG 
emissions and associated expenses.  

In terms of energy utilization, the JEC figures for hydrogen liquefaction and 
methane compression/dispensing are elevated compared to Concawe (for 
instance, 0.30 vs 0.24 MJe/MJH2 for hydrogen liquefaction). Such variances 
can be attributed to the assumptions done in the Concawe’ study assuming 
potential advancements in technology by the year 2050.  

Concerning CO2 sources, the JEC WTW study relies on CO2 from flue gases, 
while Concawe relies on steam methane reforming (SMR) pre-combustion 
processes as main source. Furthermore, while the JEC WTW study uses solid 
oxide electrolysis cells (SOEC) for e-diesel synthesis, Concawe employs 
alkaline electrolysis. Lastly, Concawe does not incorporate the emissions 
associated with oxygen production necessary for OMEx synthesis. 

63 

 
 
Energy balance 

Ecosystem and 
biodiversity impact 

JRC performed the balance of the energy expended in different renewable 
fuels of non-biological origin pathways (WTT, v5) ) (Prussi et al., 2020), 
without accounting for the contributions related to plant construction, 
decommissioning and maintenance. The energy expended ratio is given for a 
selection of pathways is presented in the next: 

Energy [MJ/MJ final fuel] 

Syndiesel from renewable electricity, CO2 from flue gas: 1.42 - 1.64 MJ/MJ  

Syndiesel from renewable electricity via FT route, CO2 from flue gas: 1.55 - 
1.55 MJ/MJ  

Syndiesel from renewable electricity via FT route, CO2 from biogas 
upgrading: 1.13 - 1.13 MJ/MJ  

Syndiesel from renewable electricity via FT route, CO2 from air via TSA: 1.78 
- 1.89 MJ/MJ  

MeOH from renewable electricity, CO2 from flue gas: 1.21 - 1.39 MJ/MJ 

DME from renewable electricity, CO2 from flue gas: 1.30 - 1.49 MJ/MJ 

SNG from renewable electricity and CO2 from flue gas: 0.95 - 1.09 MJ/MJ 

SynLNG from renewable electricity, CO2 from biogas upgrading: 1.03 - 1.19 
MJ/MJ  

RED II requires that the electricity used for the production of renewable fuels 
of non-biological origin should be of renewable origin, to ensure they 
contribute to greenhouse gas reduction. Potential impacts on ecosystem and 
biodiversity can be also related to the infrastructures of the renewable 
electricity plants, which should be located in dedicated areas at low impact.  

Water use 

Water consumption is of high interest in relation to the environmental 
sustainability of renewable fuels of non-biological origin.  

Hydrogen production via electrolysis generally requires an ecosystem rich in 
non-salted water (later discussed) which should not impact on the well-
established industry, agriculture systems and local population. However, 
some processes might be developed to use saline water and thus avoiding 
the competition for water use. 

Water is needed for the production of renewable electricity (solar, wind, 
hydro, geothermal). A large proportion of life cycle water use is required for 
the manufacturing and construction of solar photovoltaic, wind power and 
geothermal facilities. Operational water for PV and wind is mainly used for 
cleaning purposes. Water consumption for hydropower production mostly 
relates to the water losses through evaporation in hydropower reservoirs 
that can be important, depending on the plant, location etc. Water 
consumption for renewable electricity generation varies between wide 
margins (Macknick et al., 2012) (Meldrum, Heath and Macknick, 2013):  

Wind: 0.004 (0 – 0.04) m3 / MWh 

Solar: 0.329 (0.042-0.893) m3 / MWh 

Hydro: 17 (5-68) m3 / MWh 

64 

Geothermal flash technology: 0.05 (0.019 - 1.364) m3 / MWh 

Where for hydropower it is considered the water discharged by the turbines, 
where in run-of-river plants this water is immediately available downstream. 
Water required in the other energy systems is that typically used for their 
construction, and no longer available (Mekonnen, Gerbens-Leenes and 
Hoekstra, 2015). 

Water is needed in the first steps of hydrogen production. Much less water is 
needed in the fuel synthesis steps downstream. The stoichiometric amount 
of water required to extract one kilogram of hydrogen via water electrolysis 
amounts to 8.92 litres. Experimental data show that Solid Oxide Cell (SOEC) 
and alkaline water (AEL) and Polymer Electrolyte Membrane electrolysers 
(PEM) require 9.1 l / kg hydrogen, 10 l / kg and 10.7 l / kg respectively. Some 
Direct Air Capture (DAC) plants can extract water from air during operation, 
producing water, estimated at 1 l water per kg of carbon dioxide captured or 
about 3.8 l water per kg of fuel produced (Altgelt et al., 2021).  

The results show that the water consumed over the lifecycle of hydrogen 
production can be significantly higher than the water employed for 
electrolysis alone. On a LCA basis, the water consumption for hydrogen 
varies between 11.7 -19.8 l / kg H2 (for SMR process) to 30.3 l/ kg H2 for 
electrolysis (Altgelt et al., 2021).  

Water consumption for renewable fuels of non-biological origin can vary 
widely (Altgelt et al., 2021):  

e-diesel from wind electricity and DAC via FT: 0.3 - 3.6 l / kg 

e-diesel from PV electricity and DAC via FT: (-0.8) – 2.5 l / kg 

e-kerosene from wind electricity and DAC via FT: 5.0 – 8.0 l / kg 

e- kerosene from PV electricity and DAC via FT: 3.1 – 6.4 l / kg 

Air pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and 
particulate matter are major exhaust emissions from fossil fuels combustion 
in vehicles. Excessive exposure to these pollutants can have significant 
impact on human health. The combustion of renewable fuels of non-
biological origin also produces emissions in the form of carbon monoxide, 
hydrocarbons and particulates. However, the emissions from renewable fuels 
of non-biological origin and their impact on air quality depend on the type of 
fuel, related to the wide variability of fuels that can be produced. Renewable 
fuels of non-biological origin in the form of drop-in fuels (i.e. e-diesel or e-
gasoline) have the same chemical structure and thus the same air emissions 
like the fossil fuels. Oxygenated fuels (such as alcohols) produce lower 
nitrogen oxides and soot emissions than fossil fuels. Biodiesel combustion 
results in lower gaseous pollutants hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, 
carbon, and sulphur emissions and slightly higher amounts of nitrogen 
oxides relative to petroleum diesel (US eia, 2022). In the case of ammonia, 
soot emissions are reduced significantly due to the lack of carbon in the fuel 
molecule, while the NOx emissions increase significantly due to the fuel-
bound nitrogen compared to the fossil fuel.  

Air emissions with impacts on air quality could also come from the 
production of PV panels or wind blades and accidental releases of toxic 

65 

Air quality 

Land use  

Soil health 

Hazardous materials 

gases and particulates could affect occupational health. Air emissions with 
impacts on air quality might also appear at waste processing from 
decommissioning of the PV and wind plants. Accidental releases of toxic 
gases and vapours can be prevented by minimizing wastes produced during 
the processes through choosing safer technologies, processes and less toxic 
materials.  

The production of renewable fuels of non-biological origin generally requires 
renewable electricity technologies (with the exemption of biomass electricity) 
and thus the land use impact is limited to the land use for various renewable 
electricity sources (PV, wind, hydro, geothermal) and the land use for fuel 
processing plants.  

The production of renewable fuels of non-biological origin are, by definition 
from renewable electricity (with the exemption of biomass electricity) and 
thus the impact on soil is limited to the area used for renewable electricity 
production. Soil health may be impacted by the wastewater resulted from 
the cleaning of the surface of the PV panels or from the waste processing 
and landfilling resulted from decommissioning PV or wind plants.  

The production of renewable fuels of non-biological origin do not use 
hazardous materials for the manufacture of various plant components. There 
are some hazardous materials in the manufacturing process of the PV 
panels, chemicals and solvents used throughout the manufacturing 
processes of different PV technologies. Metals such as steel, copper, and 
aluminium account for most part of a wind turbine. There are various 
materials for the manufacture of wind turbine blades such as metals, 
fiberglass reinforced composite, carbon fibre reinforced polymers, natural 
fibre reinforced polymers or nanocomposites (Mishnaevsky et al., 2017) that 
should be treated carefully during their transport, installation and dismission 
due to the large dimensions. Only small amounts of metals are used.  

Economic 

Cost of energy 

See 2.3 Technology Cost – Present and Potential Future Trends  

Critical raw materials 

Resource efficiency and 
recycling 

Critical raw materials are needed for the production of PV and wind 
electricity. Solar cell manufacturing requires the use of silicon, silver, 
germanium, cadmium, tellurium, copper, indium, gallium and selenium. 
Critical raw materials such as neodymium and dysprosium are essential to 
the permanent magnets used in the generators of wind turbines. Certain 
catalysts are needed in relatively small quantities in the fuel synthesis to 
enhance the yield of desired product or promoting various reactions in fuel 
synthesis, gas shift reactions, cracking reactions, etc.  

Resource efficiency is a major goal of the EU to develop a resource-efficient, 
low-carbon economy and to achieve sustainable growth and to decouple 
economic growth from resource and energy use. The most important aspects 
for the renewable fuels of non-biological origin relates to the treatment of 
end-of-life recycling of the PV panels and wind turbines. The majority of the 
components of a wind turbine are easy to recycle because they are made of 

66 

  
Technology lock‑
in/innovation lock-out 

Tech-specific permitting 
requirements  

Sustainability 
certification schemes 

metallic parts. The wind turbine blades are the components that are difficult 
to deal with in line with principles of sustainability and circularity, because 
they are made of composite materials, as well as secondary materials like 
glues, paints and metals. Treatment of end-of-life PV modules must comply 
the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) Directive. 
WEEE defines the minimum proper treatment for the end-of-life equipment 
and sets the legal rules and obligation for collecting and recycling 
photovoltaic panels in the EU, including setting minimum collection and 
recovery targets. Several components are separated and recovered. Several 
sustainability aspects are being addressed in the framework Eco-design 
quantifying the environmental performance of PV technologies.  

There is no considerable risk of technology lock-in as the renewable fuels of 
non-biological origin will be able to use existing infrastructure, transport and 
distribution network and fuel stations. Currently, they offer the only available 
option nowadays for the decarbonisation of aviation and shipping sectors 
together with advanced biofuels.  

The rules for permitting are very complex and lengthy and represent 
important barriers for renewable energy deployment and include 
environmental and building permits. The duration, complexity and the steps 
for the permit-granting procedures greatly varies between the different 
renewable energy technologies and between Member States between 6 
weeks up to 24 months. A Commission recommendation was adopted in May 
2022 for accelerating permitting for renewable energy projects to ensure 
that projects are approved in a simpler and faster way (max two years, for 
projects outside renewables go-to areas), streamlining the different steps of 
the permit-granting processes and providing a specific framework for 
permit-granting procedures. Economic operators producing renewable fuels 
on non-biological origin methodology shall provide evidence on the temporal 
and geographical correlation between the electricity production unit and the 
fuel production, as well as on the additionally of renewable electricity 
generation.  

Renewable liquid and gaseous transport fuels of non-biological origin are 
important to increase the share of renewable energy in sectors that are 
expected to rely on liquid fuels in the long term. To ensure that renewable 
fuels of non-biological origin contribute to greenhouse gas reduction, the 
electricity used for the fuel production should be of renewable origin. The 
Commission published a specific delegated act setting the rules for counting 
electricity as renewable. The methodology  ensures that there is a temporal 
and geographical correlation between the electricity production unit and the 
fuel production. Given the enormous amount of additional renewable 
electricity generation needed, the production of renewable fuels of non-
biological origin should incentivise the deployment of new renewable 
electricity generation capacity (principle of additionality). The economic 
operator has to provide evidence or data on the production of renewable 
liquid and gaseous transport fuel of non-biological origin and the electricity 
used, obtained in accordance with a voluntary national, or international 
schemes, setting standards for the production of biofuels, bioliquids or 
biomass fuels, or other fuels.  

67 

Social 

Health 

Public acceptance 

Education opportunities 
and needs  

Rural development 
impact 

Industrial transition 
impact 

Air pollutants from fuel combustion in vehicles, such as carbon monoxide, 
nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulate matter, are found to be major 
exhaust emissions. Excessive exposure to these pollutants can have 
significant impact on air quality and human health. Renewable fuels of non-
biological origin in the form of drop-in fuels (i.e. e-diesel or e-gasoline) have 
the same chemical structure and thus the same air emissions and the same 
health impact as fossil fuels. Some fuels produce lower gaseous pollutants 
emissions of hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and 
sulphur emissions and slightly higher amounts of nitrogen oxides relative to 
fossil fuels with corresponding health threats. Various air pollutants 
emissions could come from the production as well as from recycling of PV 
panels or wind blades from accidental releases of toxic gases and 
particulates with potential occupational health impacts. 

Public acceptance is essential for successful development and take up of 
renewable energies. Public acceptance for the production of renewable fuels 
of non-biological origin relates mostly to the photovoltaics or wind electricity 
generation. Photovoltaics and wind power production are generally accepted 
by the public as public awareness has increased the last years. Some 
concerns have been expressed in particular to some impacts on land use (in 
the case of the use of agricultural land), biodiversity and environmental 
impact (offshore wind impacts on marine ecosystems, impacts on migrating 
birds, etc.), aesthetical reasons, etc. 

The need for further R&D for technological development of renewable fuels 
of non-biological origin also requires the need for education programs on 
new technologies that involved the production of renewable electricity (wind, 
solar, hydro, etc.) and fuel synthesis technologies and environmental 
sciences. Education opportunities concern the development of new processes, 
improvement of process performances, process control process integration 
and optimisation, opportunities for development of new analysis and testing 
methods, development of new materials.  

Renewable liquid and gaseous transport fuels of non-biological origin 
provides good opportunities for local and distributed renewable electricity 
production and fuel synthesis plants. This has significant positive impact on 
sustainable rural development, providing job opportunities along the supply 
chain, including skilled labour that can be a driver of industry development in 
rural areas. This provides new income-generating opportunities in rural 
areas, enhanced economic security of rural communities by supporting 
economic activities and economic growth.  

Renewable fuels of non-biological origin can contribute significantly on short 
term to the decarbonization of transport, energy diversification in the 
transport sector and energy security, while promoting innovation, growth and 
jobs and reducing the dependence on energy imports. Renewable fuels of 
non-biological origin can play a key role in the transition, acting as energy 
storage solution of the excess renewable electricity, balancing the electricity 
grid and producing renewable fuels for the decarbonisation of transport on 

68 

  
Affordable energy 
access (SDG7) 

Safety and 
(cyber)security  

Energy security 

Food security 

Responsible material 
sourcing 

short term. The production of renewable fuels of non-biological origin 
requires a carbon source that can be provided, on short term, from 
concentrated sources (flue gas from combustion plants, from alcohol 
fermentation, from biogas upgrading to biomethane, etc.) or through Direct 
Air Capture. Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Utilisation (BECCU) for the 
production of renewable fuels of non-biological origin using biogenic carbon 
is a promising option for achieving carbon-neutrality. 

Sustainable energy is a key enabler for sustainable development. Energy 
poverty in a wide context is related to access and affordability of energy. 
Renewable fuels of non-biological origin can offer great opportunities for the 
use of solar and wind plants to produce fuels (energy) for transport in local 
communities. Renewable fuels of non-biological origin, together with 
advanced biofuels, will be of utmost importance in the near- and medium-
term to decarbonize aviation, shipping and long-distance heavy road 
transport, where other options are less suitable. 

Not relevant to specific technology. 

Renewable fuels of non-biological origin will rely mostly on the local solar 
and wind resources, contribute to reducing the need for imported fossil fuels 
and diversifying the energy supply, that would avoid creating import 
dependencies elsewhere and rely on short supply chains, as well as improve 
EU energy security and resilience. Renewable liquid and gaseous transport 
fuels of non-biological origin play an important role in the endeavour for a 
rapid clean energy transition and the reduction of its dependency on fossil 
fuel imports set in the REPowerEU initiative. 

The most significant concerns for the use of biomass for bioenergy include 
the risks of increased competition between food and non-food uses of 
biomass. Renewable fuels of non-biological origin avoid the competition for 
food and feed and negative impacts on food security. Since food security, 
according to FAO and other authors (Brandão et al., 2021), has multiple 
dimensions: availability, accessibility, stability and utilization, the production 
of the renewable fuels of non-biological origin contributes to enhanced 
economic conditions of rural communities, new job opportunities, increasing 
overall food availability, food accessibility and affordability.  

Responsible sourcing has become a topic of interest to address sustainability 
risks in the global mineral supply chains. Several responsible sourcing 
initiatives exist for various materials, most of them aligned with the OECD 
guidance for responsible supply chains of minerals from conflict-affected 
and high-risk areas. The OECD Guidance focuses on issues of human rights, 
forced and child labour, occupational health and safety, human well-being, 
legality of operations and payment of taxes. EU Regulation (EU) 2017/821 
established the requirements for supply chain due diligence obligations for 
materials originating from conflict-affected and high-risk areas. Responsible 
consumption and production is addressed by the SDG 12 Ensure sustainable 
consumption and production patterns that aims to ensure responsible 

69 

consumption and production patterns in the world, by ensuring the efficient 
and sustainable use of natural resources by 2030. 

Some companies have taken voluntary commitment for responsible sourcing 
into account social and environmental considerations in their supply chains 
and their products. Sustainability assessment, using a variety of standards 
and frameworks, has also become a more common practice at the corporate 
level and plays a prominent role for responsible sourcing.  

70 

 
  
Annex 2 Energy System Models and Scenarios: POTEnCIA and POLES-JRC  

AN 2.1 POTEnCIA Model  

AN 2.1.1 Model Overview 

The Policy Oriented Tool for Energy and Climate Change Impact Assessment (POTEnCIA) is an energy system 
simulation model designed to compare alternative pathways for the EU energy system, covering energy supply 
and  all  energy  demand  sectors  (industry,  buildings,  transport,  and  agriculture).  Developed  in-house  by  the 
European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) to support EU policy analysis, POTEnCIA allows for the joint 
evaluation of technology-focused policies,  combined with policies addressing the decision-making of energy 
users. To this end: 

●  By simulating decision-making under imperfect foresight at a high level of techno-economic detail, 
POTEnCIA  realistically  captures  the  adoption  and  operation  of  new  energy  technologies  under 
different policy regimes; 

●  By combining yearly time steps for demand-side planning and investment with hourly resolution 
for the power sector, POTEnCIA provides high temporal detail to suitably assess rapid structural 
changes in the EU’s energy system; 

●  By  tracking  yearly  capital  stock  vintages  for  energy  supply  and  demand,  POTEnCIA  accurately 
represents the age and performance of installed energy equipment, and enables the assessment 
of path dependencies, retrofitting or retirement strategies, and stranded asset risks. 

The core modelling approach of POTEnCIA (Figure 19; detailed in Mantzos et al., 2017, 2019) focuses on the 
economically-driven operation of energy markets and corresponding supply-demand interactions, based on a 
recursive  dynamic  partial  equilibrium  method.  As  such,  for  each  sector  of  energy  supply  and  demand,  this 
approach assumes a representative agent seeking to maximize its benefit or minimize its cost under constraints 
such as available technologies and fuels, behavioural preferences, and climate policies.  

Figure 19. The POTEnCIA model at a glance 

Source: JRC adapted from (Mantzos et al., 2019) 

71 

 
This core modelling approach is implemented individually for each EU Member State to capture differences in 
macroeconomic and energy system structures, technology assumptions, and resource constraints. The national 
model  implementation  is  supported  by  spatially-explicit  analyses  to  realistically  define  renewable  energy 
potentials and infrastructure costs for hydrogen and CO2 transport. Typical model output is provided in annual 
time  steps  over  a  horizon  of  2000-2070;  historical  data  (2000-2021)  are  calibrated  to  Eurostat  and  other 
official  EU  statistics  to  provide  accurate  initial  conditions,  using  an  updated  version  of  the  JRC  Integrated 
Database of the European Energy System (JRC-IDEES; Rózsai et al., 2024).  

AN 2.1.2 POTEnCIA CETO 2024 Scenario 

The technology projections provided by the POTEnCIA model are obtained under a climate neutrality scenario 
aligned with the broad GHG reduction objectives of the European Green Deal. As such, this scenario reduces net 
EU  GHG  emissions  by  55%  by  2030  and  90%  by  2040,  both  compared  to  1990,  and  reaches  net  zero  EU 
emissions by 2050. To model suitably the uptake of different technologies under this decarbonisation trajectory, 
the scenario includes a representation at EU level of general climate and energy policies such as emissions 
pricing under the Emissions Trading System, as well as key policy instruments that have a crucial impact on the 
uptake of specific technologies. For instance, the 2030 energy consumption and renewable energy shares reflect 
the targets of the EU's Renewable Energy Directive and of the Energy Efficiency Directive. Similarly, the adoption 
of alternative powertrains and fuels in transport is consistent with the updated CO2 emission standards in road 
transport  and  with  the  targets  of  the  ReFuelEU  Aviation  and  FuelEU  Maritime  regulations.  A  more  detailed 
description of the POTEnCIA CETO 2024 Scenario will be available in the forthcoming report (Neuwahl et al., 
2024).  

72 

 
 
AN 2.2 POLES-JRC model 

AN 2.2.1 Model Overview 

POLES-JRC  (Prospective  Outlook  for  the  Long-term  Energy  System)  is  a  global  energy  model  well  suited  to 
evaluate the evolution of energy demand and supply in the main world economies with a representation of 
international  energy  markets.  It  is  a  simulation  model  that  follows  a  recursive  dynamic  partial  equilibrium 
method. POLES-JRC is hosted at the JRC and was designed to assess global and national climate and energy 
policies.  

POLES-JRC covers the entire energy system, from primary supply (fossil fuels, renewables) to transformation 
(power, biofuels, hydrogen and hydrogen-derived fuels such as synfuels) and final sectoral demand (industry, 
buildings, transport). International markets and prices of energy fuels are calculated endogenously. Its high level 
of regional detail (66 countries & regions covering the world with full energy balances, including all detailed 
OECD and G20 countries) and sectoral description allows assessing a wide range of energy and climate policies 
in all regions within a consistent global frame: access to energy resources, taxation policy, energy efficiency, 
technological preferences, etc. POLES-JRC operates on a yearly basis up to 2100 and is updated yearly with 
recent information.  

The POLES-JRC model applied for the CETO project is specifically enhanced and modified to capture learning 
effects of clean energy technologies. 

POLES-JRC results are published within the series of yearly publications "Global Climate and Energy Outlooks” 
– GECO. The GECO reports along with detailed country energy and GHG balances and an on-line visualisation 
interface can be found at: https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/scientific-activities-z/geco_en 

A detailed documentation of the POLES-JRC model is provided in (Després et al., 2018). 

Figure 20. Schematic representation of the POLES-JRC model architecture. 

Source: POLES-JRC model 

73 

 
 
 
AN 2.2.2 POLES-JRC Model description  

Power system 

The power system considers all relevant power generating technologies including fossil, nuclear and renewable 
power  technologies.  Each  technology  is  modelled  based  on  its  current  capacities  and  techno-economic 
characteristics. The evolution of cost and efficiencies are modelled through technology learning. 

With  regard  to  the  power  technologies  covered  by  CETO,  the  model  includes  solar  power  (utility-scale  and 
residential PV, concentrated solar power), wind power (on-shore and off-shore), hydropower and ocean power. 
Moreover, clean thermal power technologies are taken into account with steam turbines fuelled by biomass, 
biomass  gasification,  CCS  power  technologies  and  geothermal  power.  Furthermore,  electricity  storage 
technologies such as pumped hydropower storage and batteries are also included. 

For solar and wind power, variable generation is considered by representative days with hourly profiles. For all 
renewables, regional resource potentials are considered. 

Electricity demand 
Electricity  demand  is  calculated  for  all  sectors  taking  into  account  hourly  fluctuations  through  the  use  of 
representative days. Clean energy technologies using electricity consist of heat pumps (heating and cooling), 
batteries and fuel cells in transport, and electrolysers.  

Power system operation and planning 
Power system operation allocates generation by technology to each hour of representative days, ensuring that 
supplying and storage technologies meet overall demand, including grid imports and exports. Capacity planning 
considers the existing power mix, the expected evolution of electricity demand as well as the techno-economic 
characeristics of the power technologies. 

Hydrogen  

POLES-JRC takes into account several hydrogen production routes: (i) low temperature electrolysers using power 
from dedicated solar. wind and nuclear plants as well as from the grid, (ii) steam reforming of natural gas (with 
and without CCS), (iii) gasification of coal and biomass (with and without CCS), (iv) pyrolysis of gas and biomass 
as well as (v) high temperature electrolysis using nuclear power. 

Hydrogen is used as fuel in all sectors including industry, transport, power generation and as well as feedstock 
for  the  production  of  synfuels  (gaseous  and  liquid  synfuels)  and  ammonia.  Moroever,  hydrogen  trade  is 
modelled,  considering  hydrogen  transport  with  various  means  (pipeline,  ship,  truck)  and  forms  (pressurised, 
liquid, converted into ammonia). 

Bioenergy 

POLES-JRC receives information on land use and agriculture through a soft-coupling with the GLOBIOM-G4M 
model (IIASA, 2024). This approach allows to model bioenergy demand and supply of biomass adequately by 
taking into account biomass-for-energy potential, production cost and reactivity to carbon pricing.  

Biomass is used for power generation, hydrogen production and for the production of 1st and 2nd generation of 
liquid biofuels. 

Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) 

POLES-JRC uses CCUS technologies in: 

●  Power  generation:  advanced  coal  using  CCS,  coal  and  biomass  gasification  with  CCS,  and  gas 

combined cycle with CCS. 

●  Hydrogen production: Steam reforming with CCS, coal and biomass gasification with CCS, and gas 

and biomass pyrolysis. 

●  Direct  air  capture  (DAC)  where  the  CO2  is  either  stored  or  used  for  the  production  of  synfuels 

(gaseous or liquid). 

●  Steel and cement production in the industrial sector. 

●  Second generation biofuels production. 

The deployment of CCS technologies considers region-specific geological storage potentials. 

74 

Endogenous technology learning 

The POLES-JRC model was enhanced to capture effects of learning of clean energy technologies. To capture 
these effects, a one-factor learning-by-doing (LBD) approach was applied to technologies and technology sub-
components, aiming at endogenising the evolution of technology costs.  

POLES-JRC considers historical statistics and assumptions on the evolution of cost and capacities of energy 
technologies until the most recent year available (this report: 2022/2023). Based on the year and a capacities 
threshold, the model switches from the default time series to the endogeneous modelling with the one-factor 
LBD  approach.  Within  the  LBD,  the  learning  rate  represents  the  percentage  change  of  the  cost  of  energy 
technology based on a doubling of the capacity of the energy technology. 

This generic approach is applied on a component level to capture spillover effects as well. For instance, a gasifier 
unit  is used  as component  for several  power generating  technologies (e.g.  integrated  gasification  combined 
cycle, IGCC) as well as for several hydrogen production technologies (e.g.  gasification of coal and  biomass). 
Therefore, the component-based LBD approach allows to model spillover effects not only across technologies, 
but  also  across  sectors.  Also,  it  allows  to  estimate  costs  for  emerging  technologies  for  which  historical 
experience does not yet exist. 

Moreover,  for  each  component  a  floor  cost  is  specified  which  marks  the  minimum  for  the  component's 
investment  cost  and serves  as limitation  for  the  cost  reduction  by  endogenous learning.  Cost  reductions  by 
learning in POLES-JRC slow down when the investment cost approaches the floor cost. 

The described method above applies not only for the overnight investment cost of energy technologies, but as 
well  for  operation  and  maintenance  (OM)  costs,  which  also  decrease  as  technologies  improve,  and  for 
efficiencies. In the model, OM  costs diminish  synchronously to the  decrease of total investment cost of the 
technology. The efficiency of renewables is implicitly taken into account in the investment cost learning and the 
considered renewable potentials. For most technologies the efficiencies are endogenously modelled.  

AN 2.2.3 Global CETO 2°C scenario 2024 

The global scenario data presented in the CETO technology reports 2024 refers to a 2°C scenario modelled by 
the POLES-JRC model in a modified and enhanced version to address the specific issues relevant for the CETO 
project. 

The Global CETO 2°C scenario 2024 and its specific POLES-JRC model configuration is described in detail in the 
forthcoming  report  "Impacts  of  enhanced  learning  for  clean  energy  technologies  on  global  energy  system 
scenario" (Schmitz et al., 2024).  

The Global CETO 2°C scenario 2024 is designed to limit global temperature increase to 2°C at the end of the 
century. It is driven by a single global carbon price for all regions that reduces emissions sufficiently so as to 
limit global warming to 2°C. This scenario is therefore a stylised representation of a pathway to the temperature 
targets.  This  scenario  does  not  consider  financial  transfers  between  countries  to  implement  mitigation 
measures. This is a simplified representation of an ideal case where strong international cooperation results in 
concerted effort to reduce emissions globally; it is not meant to replicate the result of announced targets and 
pledges, which differ greatly in ambition across countries.  

As a starting point, for all regions, it considers already legislated energy and climate policies (as of June 2023), 
but climate policy pledges and targets formulated in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and Long-
Term  Strategies (LTSs)  are  not  explicitly  taken  into  account.  In  particular,  the  EU  Fit  for  55  and  RePowerEU 
packages are included in the policy setup for the EU. Announced emissions targets for 2040 and 2050 for the 
EU are not considered.  

The Global CETO 2°C scenario 2024 differs fundamentally from the Global CETO 2°C scenario 2023 used in the 
CETO technology reports in 2023 in various aspects5: 

●  The  version  of  the  POLES-JRC  model  used  for  the  Global  CETO  2°C  scenario  has  been  further 
enhanced and modified to capture effects of endogenous learning of clean energy technologies 
and, furthermore, several technology representations were further detailed, e.g. DAC (composition 
of  renewable  technologies,  batteries and DAC  unit),  fuel  conversion  technologies  (for  hydrogen 
transport) and batteries in transport. 

5 A description of the Global CETO 2°C scenario 2023 can be found in Annex 3 of (Chatzipanagi et al., 2023). 

75 

 
●  The techno-economic parameters have been thoroughly revised and updated taking into account 

the expertise of the authors of the CETO technology reports.  

As a result, major scenario differences occur in the Global CETO 2°C scenario 2024  regarding DAC, synfuels, 
CCS power technologies, wind power and ocean power. 

76 

 
AN 2.3 Distinctions for the CETO 2024 Scenarios - POLES-JRC vs. POTEnCIA 

The results of both models are driven by national as well as international techno-economic assumptions, fuel 
costs, as well as policy incentives such as carbon prices. However, on one side these two JRC energy system 
models differ in scope and level of detail, on the other side the definitions of the POTEnCIA and POLES-JRC 
scenarios presented in this document follow distinct logics, leading to different scenario results: 

●  The  Global  CETO  2°C  scenario  2024  (POLES-JRC)  scenario  is  driven  by  a  global  carbon  price 
trajectory to limit global warming to 2°C, where enacted climate policies are modelled, but long-
term  climate  policy  pledges  and  targets  are  not  explicitly  considered.  Scenario  results  are 
presented for the global total until 2100. 

●  The  POTEnCIA  CETO  2024  scenario  is  a  decarbonisation  scenario  that  follows  a  trajectory  for 
EU27’s net GHG emissions aligned with the general objectives of the European Climate Law (ECL) 
taking into consideration many sector-specific pieces of legislation. Scenario results are presented 
for the EU27 until 2050. 

77 

 
References of Annex 2 

Mantzos, L., Matei, N. A., Rózsai, M., Russ, P., & Ramirez, A. S. (2017, June).  POTEnCIA: A new EU-wide energy 
sector model. In Proceedings of the 14th International conference on the European Energy Market (EEM) (pp. 1-
5). IEEE. 

Mantzos,  L.,  Wiesenthal,  T.,  Neuwahl,  F.,  &  Rózsai,  M.  (2019).  The  POTEnCIA  Central  Scenario.  An  EU  Energy 
Outlook to 2050. Report EUR 29881 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

Rózsai,  M.,  Jaxa-Rozen,  M.,  Salvucci,  R.,  Sikora,  P.,  Tattini,  J.  and  Neuwahl,  F.,  (2024)  JRC-IDEES-2021:  the 
Integrated Database of the European Energy System – Data update and technical documentation, Publications 
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, doi:10.2760/614599, JRC137809. 

Neuwahl, F., Wegener, M., Jaxa-Rozen, M., Salvucci, R., Sikora, P., Gea Bermudez, J., and Rózsai, M. The POTEnCIA 
CETO 2024 Scenario, Forthcoming. 

Després, J., Keramidas, K., Schmitz, A., Kitous, A., Schade, B., Diaz Vazquez, A., Mima, S., Russ, H. and Wiesenthal, 
T.  (2018),  POLES-JRC  model  documentation,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg, 
doi:10.2760/814959, JRC113757. 

IIASA  (2024),  International  Institute  for  Applied  Systems  Analysis,  GLOBIOM  documentation,  Laxenburg, 
https://globiom.org/documentation.html 

Schmitz, A., Schade, B., Garaffa, R., Keramidas, K., Dowling, P., Fosse, F., Díaz Vázquez, A., Russ, P., Weitzel, M., 
Impacts of enhanced learning for clean energy technologies on global energy system scenarios, Forthcoming. 

Chatzipanagi, A., Jaeger-Waldau, A., Cleret De Langavant, C., Gea Bermudez, J., Letout, S., Mountraki, A., Schmitz, 
A.,  Georgakaki,  A.,  Ince,  E.,  Kuokkanen,  A.  and  Shtjefni,  D.  (2023).  Clean  Energy  Technology  Observatory: 
Photovoltaics in the European Union - 2023 Status Report on Technology Development, Trends, Value Chains 
and Markets, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, doi:10.2760/732675, JRC135034. 

78 

 
 
 
Annex 3 Installed capacity divided per sector 

E-kerosene production potential in Europe in 2030 

Project name 

Project partners 

Country 

Location 

Commissioning 
date 

Production 
capacity in 
2030 (t/y) 

CO2 
source 

E-fuel 1 

Accelerator 

E-fuel 2 

E-fuel 3 

Sasol, DHL, 
HH2E 

Alpha 

Beta 

Gamma 

BioÖstrand 

Nordic 
Electrofuel, BPT, 
Aker solutions, 
P2X-Europe, 
Sunclass airlines 

Norsk e-Fuel, 
Sunfire, 
Climeworks, 
Paul Wurth, 
Axens, 
Norwegian, 
Gen2 Energy 

Biorefinery 
Östrand AB, St1, 
SCA 

Norway 

Herøya 

2026 

6,000 

PS, Bio 

Norway 

Norway 

Norway 

2027 

2029 

2030 

20,000 

120,000 

114,000 

Germany 

Eastern 

2030 

164,000 

Bio 

Norway 

Mosjoen 

2026 

32,000 

Bio 

Norway 

Norway 

2028 

2030 

64,000 

... 

64,000 

DAC 

Sweden 

Östrand 

2029 

100,000* 

Bio 

Hy X 

Vattenfall, St1 

Sweden 

West Coast 

2030 

100,000* 

Bio 

SAF + 
Consortium, 
H2V 

ReUze 

France 

Marseille 
Fos 

2029 

80,000 

PS, Bio 

Engie, Infinium, 
ArcelorMittal 

France 

Dunkirk 

2028 

71,000 

PS, Bio 

79 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
France 
KerEAUzen 

Engie, Air 
France38 

France 

Le Havre 

2028 

68,000 

PS, Bio 

Endor 

Jangada 

Synkero 

Hykero 

Arcadia e-fuels, 
Technip 
Energies, Haldor 
Topsoe S/A, 
Sasol Ltd, 
DCC/Shell 
Aviation 
Denmark A/S, 
Sunclass 
Airlines, BNP 
Paribas… 

Hy2Gen, 
energy4future 

Denmark 

Vordingborg 

2026 

68,000 

Bio 

Germany 

Brandenburg  2028 

64,000 

Bio 

Sky NRG, KLM, 
Schiphol Group 

The 
Netherlands 

Amsterdam 

2027 

50,000 

Bio 

Germany 

Leipzig 

2028 

50,000 

Bio 

XFuels, EDL, 
Airport Leipzig-
Halle, Johnson 
Mattey, BP 

HySkies 

Shell, Vattenfall, 
LanzaTech, SAS 

SkyFuelH2 

Sasol ecoFT, 
Uniper 

Sweden 

Forsmark 

2027 

50,000* 

Bio 

Sweden 

Solleftea 

2028 

45,000* 

Bio 

IdunnH2, 
Icelandair 

Dimensional 
Energy 

BioTJet 

Take Kair 

Smartenergy, 
REN, Lipor 

Iceland 

Greece 

France 

Helguvik 
Harbour 

Bassin de 
Lacq 

2028 

65,000 

Bio 

n.a. 

44,000 

n.a. 

2027 

38,000* 

Bio 

France 

Saint-
Nazaire 

2028 

35,000 

Bio 

Portugal 

Porto 

n.a. 

35,000 

Bio 

Elyse Energy, 
Avril, Axens, 
Bionext, IFPEN 

EDF, Holcim, 
IFPEN, Axens, Air 
France-KLM 

80 

  
  
  
  
Denmark 

Copenhagen  2029** 

30,000** 

Bio 

Green Fuels 
for Denmark 

Ørsted, 
Copenhagen 
Airports, DSV, 
DFDS, SAS, 
Topsoe, A.P. 
Moller - Maersk, 
Neste Shipping 
Oy, HOFOR , 
BIOFOS, CTR, 
VEKS 

Breogán 
Project 

Greenalia - P2X 
Europe 

Spain 

Curtis-
Teixeiro 

2027 

30,000 

Bio 

P2X Europe - 
The Navigator, 
H&R Group, 
Mabanaft 

Sasol ecoFT, 
CEMEX, 
ENERTRAG 

Hy2Gen, Technip 
Energies, 
Bionext, Axens, 
Airbus 
Helicopters 

P2X-Portugal 

Concrete 
Chemicals 

INERATEC, 
Zenith Energy 
Terminals 

Hynovera 

TOTAL 
(estimated) 

Portugal 

Figueira da 
Foz 

2027 

30,000 

Bio 

Germany 

Berlin 

2027 

26,000 

PS, Bio 

The 
Netherlands 

Port of 
Amsterdam 

2027 

26,000 

PS, Bio 

France 

Meyreuil-
Gardanne 

2028 

13,000* 

Bio 

1,702,000 

Source: (Transport & Environment, 2024b) 

Note : In cases where the total capacity for synthetic fuel production was identified without a clear breakdown 
of e-kerosene and associated by-products like e-naphtha, it was presumed that the average yield of e-
kerosene would be around 75%. This is based on the ability to fine-tune the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and 
subsequent refining processes to favor the production of e-kerosene primarily. 

* electro-fuels with the generation of biofuels, referred to as "e-biofuels" projects, a default production ratio 
of 50% each was allocated, except when project planners specified a different distribution. 

** the initiative known as Green Fuels for Denmark, which synthesizes both e-methanol and e-kerosene, is 
projected to achieve a combined production capacity of 60,000 kilotonnes by the year 2030, during its second 
phase (2b). It is projected that e-kerosene will account for half of this output, equating to 30,000 kilotonnes. 

81 

  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
E-fuels for maritime production potential in Europe in 2030  

Project Name 

Project 
Leader 

Country 

Status 

Date 

Fuel Type 

Volumes 
(Mtoe) 

Green Fuels for 
Denmark 

Ørsted 

Denmark 

BTL2030 

VTT 

Austria 

North-C-Methanol 

North CCU 
Hub 

Belgium 

ReIntegrate, Advent  European 

Denmark 

Energy and 
Port of 
Hanstholm 

European Energy 
Kassø 

European 
Energy 

Denmark 

Vordinborg Biofuel 

Vordingborg 
Havn 

Denmark 

European Energy 
Måde 

European 
Energy 

Denmark 

H2 Energy Esbjerg 

H2 Energy 
Europe 

Denmark 

HØST 

CIP 

Denmark 

H2Driven 

Dourogás 

Portugal 

Under 
discussion 

Under 
discussion 

Under 
discussion 

Decided - 
FID 

Decided - 
FID 

Under 
discussion 

Decided - 
FID 

Under 
discussion 

Under 
discussion 

Under 
discussion 

2025  Green 

0.0086 

hydrogen 

2027  Biofuel 

0.12596 

2024  E-

0.02091 

methanol 

2024  E-

0.0076 

methanol 

2024  E-

0.01521 

methanol 

2025  Biofuel 

0.14259 

2024  Green 

0.00459 

hydrogen 

2027  Green 

0.2866 

hydrogen 

2029  E-

0.26655 

ammonia 

2026  E-

0.02377 

methanol 

Eco Bunkers 

PRIO 

Portugal 

Operational  2006  Biofuel 

0.1004 

Portugal 

Under 
discussion 

2028  E-

0.11995 

ammonia 

MadoquaPower2X 

Madoqua 
Renewables, 
Power2X e 
Copenhagen 
Infrastructure 
Partners 

82 

 
Portugal 

Under 
discussion 

2025  Green 

0.02866 

hydrogen 

Green H2 Atlantic 

EDP, Galp, 
ENGIE, 
Bondalti, 
Martifer, 
Vestas Wind 
Systems A/S., 
McPhy and 
Efacec 

Green hydrogen 
Mobility Project 

Fusion Fuel 

Portugal 

Under 
discussion 

- 

Green 
hydrogen 

0.40814 

Conseil1 

Hy2Gen 

Germany 

Nautilus 

Hy2Gen 

Germany 

Airpark Laage 
(hydrogen) 

Germany 

Apex Energy 
Teterow 
GmbH and 
East Energy 
Verwaltungs 
GmbH 

Under 
discussion 

Under 
discussion 

Under 
discussion 

2024  Green 

0.00089 

hydrogen 

2027  E-

0.02852 

methanol 

2027  Green 

0.00086 

hydrogen 

H4Chem-EI 

BASF 

Germany 

Decided - 
FID 

- 

Green 
hydrogen 

0.02293 

Zella-Mehlis 

ZASt 

Germany 

Under 
discussion 

2024  E-

0.00333 

methanol 

The George Olah 
Renewable 
Methanol plant 

Advanced Methanol 
Rotterdam (AMR) 

Advanced Methanol 
Amsterdam (AMA) 

CRI 

Iceland 

Operational  2012  E-

0.0019 

methanol 

Gidara 

Netherlands  Decided - 

2025  Biofuel 

0.04278 

FID 

Gidara 

Netherlands  Under 

2025  Biofuel 

0.04159 

discussion 

Cromarty hydrogen 
Project 

Storegda 

United 
Kingdom 

Under 
discussion 

2026  Green 

0.00012 

hydrogen 

Finnfjord e-
methanol plant 

Carbon 
Recycling 
international 
(CRI), 

Norway 

Under 
discussion 

2025  E-

0.0019 

methanol 

83 

Stratkraft 
,Finnfjord 

FlagshipONE 

Ørsted 

Sweden 

Decided - 
FID 

2025  E-

0.02377 

methanol 

Södra biomethanol 
plant 

Andritz, 
Södra 

Sweden 

Operational  2019  Biofuel 

0.00238 

Glocal Green 
Innlandet AS 

Glocal Green 
Innlandet 

Norway 

Under 
discussion 

2025  Biofuel 

0.03565 

Norway 

Decided - 
FID 

2024  Green 

0.00136 

hydrogen 

Hellesylt hydrogen 
Hub 

Flakk 
Gruppen, 
Hexagon 
Composites, 
Hyon, 
TAFJORD, 
Fiskerstrand, 
Gexcon, 
SINTEF 

FlagshipTWO 

Sundsvall 
Energi 

Sweden 

The Dava facility 

Umeå Energi 

Sweden 

Finland 

Denmark 

Synthetic methanol 
production plant 

St1 

Port of Aabenraa 

Orkney Green 
hydrogen/ammonia 
plant 

Linde Gas 
A/S, Port of 
Aabenraa 

Eneus 
Energy, 
Hammars Hill 
Energy 

Under 
discussion 

Under 
discussion 

Under 
discussion 

Under 
discussion 

2024  E-

0.0019 

methanol 

2026  E-

0.0019 

methanol 

2026  E-

0.01188 

methanol 

2025  Green 

0.0215 

hydrogen 

United 
Kingdom 

Under 
discussion 

- 

E-
ammonia 

0.00433 

Project Slagen 
terminal 

HyTech Hafen 
Rostock 

ExxonMobil 

Norway 

RWE 

Germany 

Under 
discussion 

Under 
discussion 

2025  E-

0.04443 

ammonia 

2026  Green 

0.03332 

hydrogen 

Hegra (Heroya 
Green Ammonia) 

Yara Clean 
Ammonia 

Norway 

Decided - 
FID 

- 

E-
ammonia 

0.1777 

84 

Hamina Fintoil 
biorefinery 

Fintoil 

Finland 

Operational  2022  Biofuel 

0.000078 

Kokkola Renewable 
Ammonia 

Hy2gen, Plug 
Power 

Finland 

Under 
discussion 

2028  E-

0.33763 

ammonia 

San Roque 
Ammonia 

Cepsa, Yara 

Spain 

Under 
discussion 

2027  E-

0.33319 

ammonia 

EI-H2 - Aghada 

Zenith 
Energy, EI-H2 

Ireland 

Under 
discussion 

2028  E-

0.1666 

ammonia 

Arendal 

North 
Ammonia 

Norway 

Flexens Kokkola 

Flexens, KIP 
Infra 

Finland 

Spain 

Palos de la 
Frontera I 

Project Green 
Wolverine 

Fertiberia, 
Iberdrola, 
Cepsa 

Grupo 
Fertiberia 

Under 
discussion 

Under 
discussion 

Under 
discussion 

2027  E-

0.04443 

ammonia 

2027  E-

0.08885 

ammonia 

2025  E-

0.01022 

ammonia 

Sweden 

Under 
discussion 

2026  E-

0.23101 

ammonia 

Haddock 

Ørsted, Yara 

Netherlands  Under 

2025  E-

0.03332 

discussion 

ammonia 

HyFuelUp 

Project HyDeal 
España 

Berlevåg Green 
ammonia value 
chain project 

CoLAB 
BIOREF 

ArcelorMittal, 
Enagás, 
Grupo 
Fertiberia 
and DH2 
Energy 

Varanger 
Kraft, Aker 
Clean 
hydrogen 

Portugal 

Operational  2022  Biofuel 

0.00048 

Spain 

Decided - 
FID 

2031  Green 

0.42992 

hydrogen 

Norway 

Under 
discussion 

2026  E-

0.04443 

ammonia 

eM-Rhone 

Elyse Energy 

France 

Veolia and Metsä 
Fibre 

Veolia and 
Metsä Fibre 

Norway 

Under 
discussion 

Under 
discussion 

2028  E-

0.0713 

methanol 

2024  Biofuel 

0.01433 

85 

Green Ammonia 
plant 

St1 Nordik 
OY 

Norway 

Under 
discussion 

Under 
discussion 

2029  E-

0.03554 

ammonia 

2026  E-

0.04865 

ammonia 

Germany 

Project Haldor 

REDDAP v. Ramme 

Haldor 
Topsoe, 
Aquamarine 

Skovgaard 
Energy, 
Topsoe 

Denmark 

Decided - 
FID 

2024  E-

0.00076 

ammonia 

BENORTH2 (ABoroa 
power plant) 

Northega 

Spain 

Herrenhausen 
sewage works 

Aspens 

Germany 

Vitale 

pHYnix 

Spain 

hydrogen Hub 
Agder 

Norway 

Glencore 
Nikkelverk AS 
+++ 

Bodø hydrogen 

GreenH 

Norway 

Holmaneset 

Fortescue 

Norway 

eM-Lacq 

Elyse Energy 

France 

eM-Numancia 

Elyse Energy 

Spain 

Hynovi 

Vicat 

France 

Megaton 

GreenGo 
Energy 

Denmark 

Under 
discussion 

Under 
discussion 

Under 
discussion 

Decided - 
FID 

Decided - 
FID 

Under 
discussion 

Under 
discussion 

Under 
discussion 

Under 
discussion 

Under 
discussion 

2024  Green 

0.03439 

hydrogen 

2024  Green 

0.00373 

hydrogen 

2024  Green 

0.00416 

hydrogen 

2025  Green 

0.02293 

hydrogen 

2026  Green 

0.0086 

hydrogen 

2027  E-

0.1004 

ammonia 

2028  E-

0.09506 

methanol 

2028  E-

0.02377 

methanol 

2027  E-

0.09506 

methanol 

2030  Green 

2.86615 

hydrogen 

TOTAL (estimated) 

7 

Source: (Transport & Environment, 2024a) 

Please note that most of projects producing biofuels also uses hydrogen as RFNBO, therefore the final fuel is 
a mix of RFNBO and advanced biofuels (if the feedstock meets the RED requirements). Specifically, in the 
table the "Volumes (Mtoe)" column represents the potential production volumes in million tonnes of oil 
equivalent, and the "Date" refers to the expected date of operationalisation or the status update. The "Status" 
indicates the current stage of the project, and "End Use" specifies whether shipping is included as a potential 

86 

  
  
  
  
  
consumer of the produced e-fuel. The project leaders are listed as "Various partners" to indicate multiple 
partners involved, and specific details about each partner are not provided in the context. 

87 

 
 
E-methane production potential in Europe 

Project name 

Project partners 

Country 

Location 

CO2 source 

Commissioni
ng date 

Productio
n 
capacity 
(GWh/ye
ar) 

Renewable 
Gasfield 

Hybridkraftwerk 
Limeco 

Falkenhagen 

Energie 
Steiermark 
Technik GmbH, 
HyCentA 
Research GmbH, 
and others 

Limeco Swiss 
Power and 
others 

Uniper Energy 
Storage GmbH 
and others 

Austria 

Gabersdorf 

2022 

2 

Biogas (AD) 

Switzerla
nd 

Dietikon 

2022 

18 

Biogas (AD) 

Germany 

Falkenhage
n 

2018 

BioFARM/MicroPy
ros 

Pietro Fiorentini, 
Hyter, BioKomp 

Germany 

Straubing 

2023 

Pirmasens-
Winzeln 

PFI 

Germany 

Pirmasens-
Winzeln 

2015 

Schwandorf 

Eucolino 

Germany 

Schwandorf  2012 

5 

0 

5 

1 

Other 
biogenic 

Gasification 

Biogas (AD) 

Biogas (AD) 

Flensburg 

Werlte 

BioPower2Gas 

Mainz 

Energy Lab 2.0 
am KIT 

GICON GmbH 
and others 

Audi AG and 
others 

Viessmann 
Werke GmbH & 
Co. KG and 
others 

Power-to-Gas-
Anlage 

Karlsruhe 
Institute of 
Technology and 
others 

Germany 

Flensburg 

2025 

18 

Biogas (AD) 

Germany  Werlte 

2013 

16 

Biogas (AD) 

Germany 

Allendorf 

2016 

28 

Biogas (AD) 

Germany  Mainz 

2018 

32 

Biogas (AD) 

Germany 

Leopoldshaf
en 

NA 

1 

Biogas (AD) 

88 

 
Nachhaltige 
Energieversorgu
ng 

Sunfire 
Forschungszentr
um Jülich 

KraftwerkLand 
project 

Turn2X 

Technical 
University of 
Ostwestfalen-
Lippe 

Karlsruher 
Institut für 
Technologie 
(KIT) 

Germany 

Sassenburg 

2020 

NA 

Biogas (AD) 

Germany  Dörentrup 

2018 

NA 

Other 
biogenic 

Germany 

Brandenbur
g 

2024 

NA 

NA 

Infinity 

Electrochaea 
GmbH 

Germany 

Pfaffenhofe
n an der Ilm 

2020 

752 

Biogas (AD) 

RB-HTWP / 
GICON GmbH 

GICON GmbH 
and others 

Germany 

Cottbus 

2022 

MissionGreen 
Fuel 

Nature Energy 
and others 

Denmark 

Sønderborg 

2024 

Glansager PtG 

Nature Energy 

Denmark  Glansager 

2023 

Denmark 

Rooslepa 

2018 

0 

9 

35 

30 

Biogas (AD) 

Biogas (AD) 

Biogas (AD) 

Biogas (AD) 

BioCat 

University of 
South Wales 
and others 

CoSin Project 

Arkolia Energies 
and others 

France 

Sabadell 

2016 

18 

Biogas (AD) 

Naturgy and 
Greene 

Keravan Energia 
Bio-CHP 

Harjavalta P2X 
Solutions 

Naturgy, Greene  Spain 

Elche 

2024 

0 

Q Power Oy 

Finland 

Kerava 

2027 

180 

Q Power 

Finland 

Harjavalta 

2024 

28 

Lahti 

Ren-Gas 

Finland 

Lahti 

2027 

360 

Kotka 

Ren-Gas 

Finland 

Kotka 

2026 

200 

Mikkeli 

Etelé-Savon 
Energia 

Finland 

Mikkeli 

2027 

200 

Other 
biogenic 

Other 
biogenic 

Fossil/industr
ial CO2 

Other 
biogenic 

Other 
biogenic 

Other 
biogenic 

89 

Vantaa Energia 
renewable 
methane 

Occi-Biome 

Biofactory Pau 

Pori 

Ren-Gas 

Finland 

Pori 

2027 

382 

Kristinestad 

Koppo Energy 

Finland 

Kristinestad  2026 

949 

Riihimaki 

Carbon2x 

Finland 

Riihimaki 

2022 

NA 

Vantaa Energy 

Finland 

Vantaa 

2022 

81 

Other 
biogenic 

Other 
biogenic 

Other 
biogenic 

Other 
biogenic 

France 

Ludiés 

2025 

67 

Biogas (AD) 

France 

Lescar 

2024 

6.23 

Biogas (AD) 

Arkolia Energies 
and others 

CAPB 
Communauté 
d’agglo Pau 
Béarn Pyrénées 
and others 

MarHySol 

Engie 

France 

Marmagne 

2026 

14 

Biogas (AD) 

STEP de 
Bonneuil 

SIAH Croult et 
Petit Rosne 

France 

Bonneuil-
en-France 

2025 

STEP Perpignan 

Terega 

France 

Perpignan 

2023 

ENERGO 

ENERGO S.p.A 

France 

Sempigny 

2022 

METHA / GICON 
GmbH 

GICON GmbH 
and others 

France 

Paris 

2024 

4 

5 

0 

5 

Biogas (AD) 

Biogas (AD) 

Biogas (AD) 

Biogas (AD) 

Denobio-Enosis 

Enosis 

France 

2024 

67 

Biogas (AD) 

Lesquielles-
Saint-
Germain 

Methan'Up 

BIMOTEP - 
Enosis 

Urbeez and 
others 

France 

Le Havre 

2024 

10 

Biogas (AD) 

Enosis 

France 

Epinal 

2022 

NA 

Other 
biogenic 

SOLIDIA - Enosis 

Enosis and 
others 

SynBioS/MicroPy
ros 

Pietro Fiorentini, 
Hyter, BioKomp 

France 

Toulouse 

2018 

NA 

Biogas (AD) 

Italy 

Corticella 

2025 

4.53 

Gasification 

90 

Underground 
Sun Storage 

Gaznat 
methanation 
project 

Orbit II 

Jupiter 1000 

Harjavalta P2X 
Solutions 

TAURON 
methanation 

TOTAL 
(estimated) 

Austria 

Gampern 

2018 

2.8 

Switzerla
nd 

Aigle 

2023 

0.07 

fossil / 
industrial 
CO2 

fossil / 
industrial 
CO2 

Germany 

Pfaffenhofe
n 

2022 

0.03 

other 
sources than 
biogas 

France 

Fos-sur-Mer  2024 

2.29 

RAG Austria, 
AXIOM  and 
others 

TotalEnergies 
Lausanne 
(EPFL), 
Regensburg 
University of 
Applied Sciences 
(OTH 
Regensburg) 

Uniper Energy 
Storage GmbH, 
Climeworks AG, 
DBI GUT, DVGW, 
GWI, HSR 
Rapperswill, KIT 

GRTgaz, ADEM, 
CEA, Atmostat, 
AGHUST, IChPW, 
Rafako, WTST 
Polska 

fossil / 
industrial 
CO2 

fossil / 
industrial 
CO2 

fossil / 
industrial 
CO2 

Q Power 

Finland 

Harjavalta 

2024 

28 

Poland 

Zabrze 

2025 

21 

Tauron, CEA, 
Atmostat, 
AGHUST, IChPW, 
Rafako, WTST 
Polska 

Source: (European Biogas Association (EBA), 2024) 

3,587 

91 

  
  
  
  
  
 
Getting in touch with the EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct centres. You can find the address of the 
centre nearest you online (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

On the phone or in writing 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this 
service: 

— by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

— at the following standard number: +32 22999696, 

— via the following form: european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_en. 

Finding information about the EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa 
website (european-union.europa.eu). 

EU publications 

You can view or order EU publications at op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications 
can  be  obtained  by  contacting  Europe  Direct  or  your  local  documentation  centre  (european-
union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language 
versions, go to EUR-Lex (eur-lex.europa.eu). 

EU open data 

The portal data.europa.eu provides access to open datasets from the EU institutions, bodies and agencies. 
These can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The 
portal also provides access to a wealth of datasets from European countries. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The Joint Research Centre (JRC) provides 
independent, evidence-based knowledge and 
science, supporting EU policies to positively 
impact society 

EU Science Hub 
Joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu