Green Aviation Fuel: Will EU Quotas Make Flights More Expensive?

TVS News AI, editorially supervised, presents Green Aviation Fuel: Will EU Quotas Make Flights More Expensive.

Each year, 875 million liters of kerosene are fueled at Düsseldorf Airport. Soon, Sustainable Aviation Fuel, or SAF, will also be blended in there. The amount sounds small compared with the volume of conventional fuel. The production side is a different story: According to the aviation industry, current SAF volumes are close to zero, and alternative fuels cost up to ten times as much as conventional kerosene.

The EU regulation “ReFuelEU Aviation” therefore faces a concrete problem: It creates binding demand while there are almost no plants and hardly any affordable capacity. For you as a traveler, that means a higher flight-cost burden is possible, but the available information provides neither a specific euro amount per ticket nor a date for any particular price increase.

6 Percent From 2030: How Ambitious Is the EU Quota?

The binding targets

The EU wants to enforce the use of SAF. Under “ReFuelEU Aviation,” at least six percent of aviation fuel must be sustainable in 2030. By 2050, the mandatory share will rise to 70 percent. At the same time, the quota for synthetic e-kerosene is growing: from just over one percent to at least 35 percent.

The regulation therefore sets a target not only for individual airlines. Those that fail to meet their quota have to pay. The industry expects €1.3 billion in fines for Germany alone in 2030. This figure makes the transition an easy detail: For airlines and their suppliers, the quota is binding even though supply has not yet kept pace.

Two routes to green kerosene

Technically, SAF is not a single fuel but covers two different production methods. Bio-SAF is made from biological feedstocks such as used cooking oil, frying fat, or forestry residues. In the production of eSAF—electricity-based Sustainable Aviation Fuel—green hydrogen is first produced from water using renewable electricity. It is then chemically combined with CO₂ to create synthetic fuel.

According to the source, both methods are intended to save crude oil and CO₂. The difference lies in the feedstocks and production process. Bio-SAF requires biological feedstocks, while eSAF also relies on green electricity and the chemical combination of hydrogen and CO₂. Given the currently low production volumes, the key practical question is which route can economically meet the additional demand.

1.3 Million Liters Against 875 Million Liters of Kerosene

The production gap

An example from Frankfurt illustrates the scale. According to the operator, a facility run by Ineratec in Frankfurt-Höchst can produce 1.3 million liters of SAF per year. It is considered the world’s largest facility of this kind. By contrast, 875 million liters of kerosene per year are consumed at Düsseldorf Airport—before the planned SAF blending.

Lars Redeligx, CEO of Düsseldorf Airport, says only a few facilities are currently operating. Little new capacity is being built at present, either. That does not mean there has been no progress. It does mean, however, that available production is small compared with the statutory demand. The industry therefore describes current SAF volumes as close to zero.

What the quota does to production

Without the regulation, Ralf Diemer, managing director of eFuel Alliance, says nobody would voluntarily use SAF because the fuel is up to ten times more expensive. For him, the quota therefore acts as a sales guarantee for investors: Energy suppliers and airlines would have to use—and thus buy—the fuels in the prescribed quantities.

It is precisely this planning certainty that is supposed to enable the necessary billions in investment in new SAF facilities. For airlines, this is a double-edged argument. On the one hand, the quota provides a clear long-term sales target. On the other hand, they have to procure expensive, scarce fuel early on, even though the European Commission initially assesses the impact on prices as minor.

Airlines See the Costs, the European Commission Sees a Stable Market

The airport executive’s warning

Lars Redeligx fears that airlines will pass the additional costs on to their customers. His criticism is particularly directed at what he considers a situation in which there is neither a convincing climate benefit nor a gain in competitiveness. He says: “If this doesn’t achieve anything for the climate, it will place a burden on our domestic industry and consumers, and on them alone.”

The European Commission’s counterposition

The European Commission considers this criticism exaggerated. Because only a small amount of SAF has to be blended in for now, it should have little impact on prices. Birgit Schmeitzner, spokesperson for the European Commission in Germany, points to guardrails intended to create a secure market over the long term. With more supply, prices could even fall in the long run.

That is exactly where the two sides differ. Airlines and Düsseldorf Airport are looking at the current scarcity and high production costs. The European Commission, by contrast, is relying on the development of capacity and a larger market. For your flight ticket, the source therefore provides no fixed price scenario. It does, however, show the mechanism: A rising mandatory quota increases demand for SAF, while supply is currently close to zero and production remains expensive.

What is already certain

For airlines, binding minimum shares apply from 2030, with substantial fines threatened for noncompliance. For travelers, no specific price increase can be quantified in either euros or by a particular date. For the industry, there is also pressure to finance new facilities whose expansion, according to the source, is currently making little progress.

You can find detailed research on the EU quotas for sustainable kerosene in the Tagesschau report of November 1, 2026. It reports that the European Commission expects €1.3 billion in fines for Germany alone in 2030.