Could future flights be powered by thin air?
Source: CNN
Imagine boarding a flight from Seattle to London, but instead of burning fossil fuel, your plane's engine runs on fuel created — quite literally — from thin air.
It sounds like science fiction, but research labs are already working on making it happen. So far it's on a very small scale. A new class of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) pulls carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the air and turns it into jet fuel, offering a glimpse into a future where aviation could be virtually emissions-free.
The catch? The price tag for these e-fuels is still sky-high.
Sustainable aviation fuel prices vary depending on how they're made, and none of these fuels are widely used yet.
There are two main types: bio-based SAF, made from organic materials like used cooking oil and agricultural waste, and e-SAF (also known as electrofuels, e-kerosene and e-fuels), made with renewable hydrogen and CO₂ captured from the air.
E-fuels are the most expensive option, largely due to the high cost of carbon capture and electrolysis. But they hold immense promise: they could be genuinely carbon-neutral.
'Among all alternatives to fossil jet fuel, e-kerosene offers the most promising path to decarbonize the aviation sector,' says Camille Mutrelle, aviation policy officer at Transport & Environment, a European nonprofit focused on sustainable transport. 'Unlike bio-based SAF, which is limited by feedstock availability and land use concerns, e-kerosene can be sustainably scaled up to meet aviation fuel demand without competing with food production.'
Lifecycle emissions for e-SAF can approach zero — especially when it's made using CO₂ captured directly from the air and powered by renewable electricity, Mutrelle adds.
Though the market is still nascent, the first commercial flights using e-fuels, at least in part, are expected by 2030, Mutrelle says. More than 30 industrial-scale projects are already underway across Europe, and major airlines including United Airlines and IAG are beginning to invest.
'We expect broader deployment in the 2030s as production ramps up and costs fall,' Mutrelle adds.
According to the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, e-fuels currently average 7,695 euros (about $8,720) per ton. Bio-based SAF is cheaper, at 2,085 euros (about $2,365) per ton, but still far more expensive than conventional jet fuel, which averages 734 euros (about $830) per ton.
This massive price gap explains why SAF adoption — especially e-fuels — has been slow.
So what's the science that could power a 280-ton Dreamliner across the Atlantic — using nothing but air, water and renewable energy?
Carbon capture fuels avoid the environmental pitfalls of traditional biofuels, which often rely on monoculture crops like sugarcane that can damage biodiversity and compete with food production.
Instead, e-fuels use CO₂ from the atmosphere (or industrial emissions), plus hydrogen extracted from water via electrolysis using renewable electricity. The result is a synthetic jet fuel that can be used in existing aircraft engines, recycling carbon instead of adding more to the atmosphere.
Among the companies pioneering this approach is Twelve, a California-based startup developing low-temperature CO₂ electrolysis. It's an energy-efficient method of turning CO₂ and water into syngas, the foundation of fuel that's synthetic, or simply made of something other than natural fossil resources.
'Our way is the electrochemistry way, where we're doing CO₂ electrolysis at the front end — and we're doing it at low temperatures,' says Ashwin Jadhav, Twelve's vice president of business development. 'There's not many folks out there focused on that.'
This low-temp process uses less energy than traditional high-heat methods and integrates easily with wind and solar, making e-fuel production more efficient and scalable. These 'air-based fuels' can reduce emissions by up to 90% compared to fossil jet fuel, without the drilling, refining, and transport pollution of oil, according to representatives at Twelve.
Twelve's first production plant, called AirPlant One, is opening this year in Washington state and the company plans to make 50,000 gallons of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) annually. United Airlines is one of the major supporters helping to make this first round of mass-scale production possible. Twelve has also signed a major deal to supply 260 million gallons of SAF over 14 years to Europe's International Airlines Group (which owns Vueling, Iberia, Aer Lingus and British Airways).
And while Twelve's fuel hasn't yet powered a commercial flight, the company aims to supply e-fuel for flights within the next year. Microsoft is part of a three-way partnership with Alaska Airlines and Twelve, whereby Microsoft will offset business travel emissions resulting from employees flying on Alaska Airlines.
For now, the expectation is to blend e-SAF with fossil fuels until production of e-SAF is scaled up to fill tanks. Under Europe's ReFuelEU Aviation regulation, flights within Europe must use 2% SAF by 2025 and 70% by 2050 — with specific targets for e-fuel adoption along the way.
While the technology for green skies already exists, shifting from fossil fuels to truly sustainable aviation is a long, complicated journey. Existing, longstanding investments in oil, political considerations and the pace of regulation all play a role in how quickly the transition takes flight.
'Economies of scale are needed to lower prices, but the high upfront costs discourage airlines from adopting SAF widely,' says Marina Efthymiou, a professor of aviation management at Dublin City University. 'Without strong policy interventions — such as subsidies, tax credits, and mandates — the financial gap is simply too large to overcome.'
She notes that e-fuels have the highest emissions-reduction potential of any SAF — but also the steepest startup costs.
So far, most SAF usage by airlines has involved bio-based fuels, especially HEFA-SPK (Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids), which are more commercially available.
In November 2023, Virgin Atlantic flew the first transatlantic flight powered entirely by sustainable fuels — made from waste fats and plant sugars. No fossil fuel. No e-fuels either. It showed that clean aviation is possible, though next-generation options like e-fuels are still too expensive and difficult to scale.
Airlines including Emirates, Cebu Pacific, Virgin Atlantic and British Airways have all flown using SAF, though details are often vague.
'Airlines aren't always transparent about how much SAF they're using, the blend percentage, or which type of SAF they rely on,' Efthymiou says.
Across the energy, technology, and aviation sectors, a growing number of companies are investing in sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Airlines like United, Delta, Lufthansa, Japan Airlines, and Air France-KLM have committed to scaling up SAF usage, while energy giants like Shell, BP, and TotalEnergies are funding SAF production facilities.
Tech companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Google have pledged SAF purchases to offset business travel emissions. However, investment in electrofuels (eSAF) — produced by combining captured CO₂ and renewable electricity — is still far more limited.
Early adopters like United Airlines, Lufthansa Group, IAG (British Airways' parent company), and Japan Airlines have signed partnerships with companies like Twelve, Infinium, and Synhelion. Because eSAF is significantly more expensive and energy-intensive to produce than bio-based SAF, corporate investment remains cautious, and large-scale deployment will depend heavily on regulatory support and technological breakthroughs.
E-fuels are hard to make and even harder to scale. The required infrastructure — carbon capture units, electrolysis systems, fuel synthesis plants — is costly to build.
Production also demands huge amounts of renewable energy. Electrolysis, which entails using electricity to isolate hydrogen in water, alone requires large-scale green hydrogen generation, which is still developing in most regions.
'E-fuels have the potential to be the most sustainable form of SAF because they can be produced without land use, agricultural input, or waste feedstocks,' says Efthymiou. 'But that depends on the source of electricity and CO₂. The sustainability promise only holds if the inputs are truly renewable.'
In short, e-fuels will only be as clean as the grid that powers them.
Still, a major upside is that e-fuels work with existing aircraft.
'Most estimates suggest e-fuels could become more cost-competitive by the mid-2030s,' Efthymiou says, 'depending on renewable electricity prices, carbon pricing and technological improvements.'
Small-scale demo plants are already running — like Ineratec and Atmosfair in Germany, and Infinium and Twelve in the US.
But volumes remain tiny, and costs are high.
'Without a solid regulatory push, airlines just aren't motivated to switch,' says Mutrelle.
Still, with continued investment, policy support, and technological advancements, experts believe that the idea of flying on fuel made from air could become a reality.
Though pragmatic about the challenges faced, many experts are optimistic.
Jonathon Counsell, head of sustainability at International Airlines Group, is one.
'Of course the ultimate goal is to take CO₂ directly from the atmosphere,' Counsell says. 'At first, we're capturing CO₂ from industrial plants to prevent it from entering the air. But the next step is direct air capture — sucking carbon out of the atmosphere itself. That's where we really want to get to.'
He points out that SAF production has already grown from 100 tons to over a million tons in just a few years — evidence that scaling is possible.
While carbon capture fuels remain a long-term solution rather than a present reality, if governments, airlines, and innovators align, the idea of flying on fuel made from air could take off sooner than we think.
See Full Web Article
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
21 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Senate to Keep Spectrum Sales in Tax Bill, Key Republican Says
A key Republican said senators have reached an agreement to reauthorize spectrum sales to internet companies that would generate billions of dollars in revenue toward funding US President Donald Trump's sweeping tax cuts and spending bill. Spectrum sales were included in the House version of the reconciliation package but the provision had drawn objections from South Dakota Republican Senator Mike Rounds, who previously said they risked undermining the US military's communications capabilities.


CNN
25 minutes ago
- CNN
Why Tesla now needs the EV tax credit that Musk once said should go away
It wasn't long ago that Tesla CEO Elon Musk was advocating for ending the $7,500 tax credit for buyers of electric vehicles. 'Take away the subsidies. It will only help Tesla,' he said in a post on his social media platform X last year, adding 'Also remove the subsidies from all industries!' But now, with House budget and tax bill known as the 'big, beautiful bill' proposing to end that tax credit, he and Tesla are suddenly arguing for the continuation of those same credits as the Senate debates its own version of the bill. 'Abruptly ending the energy tax credits would threaten America's energy independence and the reliability of our grid' said Tesla's solar power unit in its own post on X late last month. 'There is no change to tax incentives for oil & gas, just EV/solar,' Musk said in a follow-up post. The turnabout may have to do with the recent financial troubles at Tesla. Many experts believed that getting rid of the EV tax credit would hurt legacy automakers, which continue to lose money on their EV operations, more than it would hurt Tesla. But Tesla's sales took a nosedive this year, and it needs the credits to maintain buyer demand. The battle over EV tax credits, and Musk's broader opposition to the Republicans' budget and taxation bill, has caused a major split between President Donald Trump and Musk – a member of the administration's inner circle as recently as last week. The outcome could endanger the key legislative priority of Trump and Republicans. It could also be affect the finances of the beleaguered Tesla. Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson have both suggested that the loss of federal support for EV's is driving Musk's opposition to the bill. 'Elon and I had a great relationship, I don't know if we will anymore,' Trump told reporters Thursday. 'I am very disappointed. Elon knew the inner workings of this bill… all of a sudden he had a problem and he only developed the problem after he found out we had to cut the EV mandate.' Despite Trump's reference to an EV mandate, there has never been a federal rule requiring Americans buy EVs rather than gasoline-powered cars. But the Biden administration did pass the $7,500 EV tax credit in an effort to spur demand for EVs. Musk immediately denied removal of the EV tax credit was the reason for his opposition to the bill. 'Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill,' he posted on X shortly after Trump's remarks. Tesla shares (TSLA) fell 14% following the exchange. Musk has focused most of his criticism on how the domestic policy bill would balloon the deficit. However, he is also no longer is arguing that ending the EV tax credit would be good for Tesla. Tesla did not respond to a request for comment. However, Musk's shift on the EV tax credit likely reflects changes at Tesla since late last year. Backlash to Musk's political activities played a major role in the company's recent sales troubles, including its first drop in annual sales in 2024 and its biggest ever drop in its sales during the first three months of the year. That resulted in a 71% plunge in net income in the first quarter. While the $7,500 EV tax credit goes to car buyers, it indirectly benefits EV makers by increasing demand. When an earlier version was phased out in 2019, Tesla was forced to cut prices to keep buyers interested. It's not just Musk who changed his opinion on the credit's important to Tesla. The same analysts who once believed removing the EV tax credit would help Tesla are now concerned over its loss. In a note to clients the day after the election, Garrett Nelson, an analyst for CFRA Research, wrote that ending the credit 'will widen Tesla's competitive moat by making competing EV models even more uneconomic, as we believe (Tesla) is the only profitable manufacturer of EVs.' But now, Nelson is expressing worry over Tesla's value if the credits go away. 'Our view is the 'Big Beautiful Bill' would be a net negative for Tesla, as tax credits for EVs, energy storage and solar would be going away,' Nelson said in response to questions from CNN. 'That, and ongoing EV market share losses in China and Europe, are some of the primary reasons why we downgraded the stock in April.' Still, despite cutting his price target for Tesla, Nelson still has a buy recommendation on Tesla shares, as does Dan Ives, another Tesla bull. The tech analyst for Wedbush Securities said the change in finances at Tesla make the tax credits more important than in the past. 'Musk has definitely changed his tune from earlier on this,' Ives told CNN. 'The reality is it will hurt Tesla less than other EV makers, but it will still hurt. And Tesla needs all of the demand help it can get.' Under current bill language, the tax credit remains in place for upstart EV makers like Rivian and Lucid but goes away for Tesla and most legacy automakers, said John Murphy, auto analyst at Bank of America. But he said the greatest challenge for Tesla is that demand for EV among American buyers appears to have stalled. 'I think 8% market share might be the high water mark for EV,' he said at a presentation Wedneday, speaking about overall demand for electric vehicles in the US market. Because of that, and the lack of new Tesla models, especially a lower-priced version that had been promised, 'I think (Musk) is going to be challenged to grow volume.'


New York Times
25 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Threatens Musk Contracts as Feud Escalates
President Trump threatened to cut billions of dollars in federal contracts and tax subsidies for Elon Musk's companies on Thursday, the latest escalation in the growing feud between the two men. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' the president wrote on Truth Social. 'I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' Last year, Mr. Musk's companies were promised $3 billion across nearly 100 different contracts with 17 federal agencies. Most of the contracts were for SpaceX, Mr. Musk's space technology company. Tesla, his electric vehicle company, also has contracts with the federal government. But the relationship between the two men very publicly dissolved Thursday. Mr. Musk until last week was a top presidential adviser and has since turned into a critic of one of Mr. Trump's priorities. Mr. Musk has called the president's signature legislation currently moving through Congress a 'disgusting abomination.' The two lashed out at each other from on their own social media platforms on Thursday. 'Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!' Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social. Mr. Musk responded on X, the social media platform he owns, 'Such an obvious lie. So sad.'