What is SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuels)?

Sustainable Aviation Fuel refers to non-fossil jet fuels that can reduce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions relative to conventional jet fuel. It’s “drop-in” in many cases: meaning it can be blended into existing jet fuel and used in current aircraft / infrastructure (to various blend limits) without major modifications. Estimates suggest SAF could provide a large share (roughly ~65%) of the emissions reduction needed for aviation to reach net-zero CO₂ by 2050, assuming sufficient scale and supportive policies.
There is no one “best” SAF option yet; different pathways may suit different geographies, resource availabilities, and regulatory environments. For near-term deployment, HEFA (from waste oils/fats) is leading, because of relative maturity. For long term decarbonization, PtL / e-SAF and FT pathways may be essential, especially for large commercial or long-haul flights, provided clean energy and carbon capture scale up. Policy & regulation, certification, economics, and sustainability constraints are as important as the technical pathways.

Complex Considerations

Policy & regulation, certification, economics, and sustainability constraints are as important as the technical pathways. It’s not enough just to have “bio‐” or “synthetic.” Feedstocks have to meet criteria (no deforestation, minimal land use change, no competition with food production, etc.). Also concerns about biodiversity, water use, supply chain fraud. SAF is significantly more expensive than fossil jet fuel (for now), partly due to feedstock, process complexity, scale, and regulatory / certification costs. Scaling production is essential. Mandates, incentives, carbon pricing all play big roles. Many regions (EU, US etc.) are implementing or considering mandates / blending targets. Policies like ReFuelEU in EU define what types of SAF are eligible, set sustainability criteria.

HEFA is the most mature and currently most used pathway. Others (ATJ, FT-SPK, SIP etc.) are less mature, either in pilot / early 
commercial stage. PtL is even newer. All have potential to reduce,
often strongly, but actual GHG savings depend a lot on feedstock, energy source, land use, transport etc. PtL / eSAF may approach the low end of net-zero if powered entirely by renewable energy and using captured CO₂. 

Waste oils/fats are limited, biomass has competing uses and risks, land availability is an issue; and synthetic fuels depend on clean energy and CO₂ capture capacity. Biofuel pathways can strain land/water or push deforestation if not managed well. Synthetic pathways less so, though they require large renewable electricity and sometimes infrastructure. PtL probably has highest cost; HEFA and FT are still expensive relative to fossil fuel jet fuel but benefit from existing infrastructure; economies of scale and policy incentives are critical.

Is Hydrogen Power an Option for Commercial Aviation?

Hydrogen could play a useful role in commercial aviation — especially in certain segments — but there are significant technical, economic, and infrastructural challenges that mean it’s unlikely to be a complete solution in the near term.

Hydrogen has much higher specific energy (energy per kilogram) than jet fuel. That means less mass of fuel is needed for the energy. Burning hydrogen (or using it via fuel cells) doesn’t produce CO₂, though other emissions (e.g. NOₓ) and lifecycle impacts need managing. As Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs) scale more slowly, hydrogen offers a route with potentially larger emissions reductions for certain types of flights.

The Key Challenges
  1. Volumetric energy density and storage
    • Although hydrogen has great energy per kg, it has much lower energy per liter compared to kerosene. That means hydrogen fuel tanks must be much larger (or compressed/high-pressure or liquefied) to carry the same energy. Frontiers+2Electric Vehicles Research+2
    • Liquid hydrogen (LH₂) must be kept at extremely low temperature (≈ −253 °C) which brings insulation, boil-off, and safety issues. clean-aviation.eu+3Clean Air Task Force+3ICCT+3
  2. Aircraft design modifications
    • New tank placements (often not in wings), structural changes, insulation, weight trade-offs. All of these affect aerodynamics, drag, and overall efficiency. Clean Air Task Force+2arXiv+2
    • Systems for hydrogen delivery, conditioning, and safety are different (fuel system, cryogenics, etc.). Airbus+2TRIMIS+2
  3. Production of “clean” hydrogen
    • If hydrogen is produced via fossil fuels without carbon capture (so-called “grey” hydrogen), the emissions benefit is much less. To make hydrogen truly sustainable, it must come from renewable energy (“green” hydrogen) or from low-emission processes. Scientific American+1
    • Costs of green hydrogen remain high, and scaling up production infrastructure (electrolyzers, renewable power, distribution) is a big investment. Electric Vehicles Research+1
  4. Certification, regulation, and infrastructure
    • Safety and regulatory frameworks for hydrogen aircraft are not mature; authorities are starting to tackle them but it’s a long process. EASA+1
    • Airports, supply and fueling infrastructure globally are built for kerosene-based fuels; converting or installing the systems for cryogenic hydrogen or high-pressure hydrogen is expensive. Electric Vehicles Research+2clean-aviation.eu+2
  5. Range limits on certain configurations
    • Gaseous hydrogen storage (even at high pressure) is inefficient volumewise; liquid hydrogen helps, but even then there are limitations in range unless design optimizations are made. So long-haul large aircraft are harder to transition early on.
Projects like HyPERION (by Safran, Airbus, ArianeGroup) are making progress in testing hydrogen combustion systems, conditioning, etc.  The EU is funding demonstrator programs (e.g., HYDEA) for hydrogen propulsion systems aiming for zero-CO₂ low emission aircraft by ~2035. Airlines and manufacturers are making earlier stage deals / prototypes: e.g. ZeroAvia is working toward hydrogen-electric engines for regional aircraft. Regulators like EASA are holding workshops on certifying hydrogen aircraft, acknowledging that rules and safety frameworks will need adaptation.

Putting all of that together, here is a rough assessment of how “useful” hydrogen is likely to be for commercial aviation in practice over time:

  • Near term (next 5-10 years):
    Most of the action will be in small/regional aircraft, demonstration projects, fuel cell or hybrid powertrains. Some hydrogen combustion engine tests. Probably limited routes, niche markets (e.g. tourist flights, regional hops). Infrastructure and hydrogen production / supply still early.
  • Medium term (10-20 years):
    Wider deployment for short- and medium-haul commercial aircraft, possibly small narrow-body jets using hydrogen (liquid) for propulsion or hybrid systems. Some hydrogen ports & airport refueling systems in main hubs. Costs and technologies will improve, hydrogen more “green,” regulatory frameworks mature.
  • Long term (20+ years):
    If breakthroughs in aircraft design (tank integration, insulation, weight reduction, new airframe types) and green hydrogen cost and supply occur, hydrogen could play a major role even for longer routes. But even then, SAFs, synthetic fuels, and other technologies will likely continue to coexist because hydrogen will not solve all challenges (e.g. infrastructure in remote airports, or cost pressures in certain markets).

Hydrogen is promising, but it’s not a silver bullet. For many commercial flights, especially longer ones or with large capacity, switching fully to hydrogen will require overcoming substantial hurdles in storage, cost, infrastructure, certification, and aircraft design. But for regional/short haul flights, or specific use cases, hydrogen could become a viable, useful tool in more sustainable aviation sooner rather than later.

Quick Comparison: Hydrogen v. Advanced SAF v. Electric Batteries

The Bottom Line
  • Advanced SAF = the most near-term, drop-in lever to cut aviation CO₂ at scale.
  • Hydrogen = a promising medium/long-term zero-carbon route for some aircraft types (especially regional / short-to-medium haul with new designs), but requires big changes to aircraft, airports and green-hydrogen supply.
  • Electric batteries = very good for small / short-range aircraft today; for medium/long haul they remain constrained by energy density and weight until major battery breakthroughs occur.

1) Technology maturity
  • Advanced SAF: Commercial plants running (HEFA etc.); production scale small but growing; regulatory frameworks and blend certification exist. Reuters

  • Hydrogen: Demonstrations and concept aircraft; cert/regulatory work underway but full certification & supply chains immature. IATA+1
  • Batteries: Mature for ground EVs; aviation batteries in early commercial demos and R&D — technology readiness for narrow use cases (commuter/regional). ScienceDirect+1
2) Energy density & aircraft impact
  • SAF (liquid hydrocarbons): Very similar volumetric/gravimetric properties to Jet-A (drop-in at certain blends or with certification for 100% in future pathways), minimal aircraft redesign for blends.
  • Hydrogen: Excellent gravimetric energy (kWh/kg) but much lower volumetric energy → requires large tanks (LH₂ or high-pressure storage), cryogenics for liquid H₂, major redesign (tank placement, insulation, aerodynamics). IEA
  • Batteries: Current Li-ion energy density is far lower than jet fuel (fraction of kWh/kg of Jet-A), leading to big weight penalties for medium/long range. Makes battery propulsion realistic mainly for very short routes or small aircraft unless energy density improves dramatically. ScienceDirect+1
3) Lifecycle emissions (real world)
  • SAF: Can reduce lifecycle CO₂ by ~60–90% vs fossil jet fuel depending on feedstock and pathway (HEFA, FT, ATJ, PtL). Sustainability depends on feedstock sourcing and indirect effects. Reuters+1
  • Hydrogen: Zero CO₂ at point of use; lifecycle benefit depends on hydrogen production: if green (renewable electrolysis) large benefit; if fossil without CCS, benefit is small/negative. Today most H₂ is fossil-based. IEA
  • Batteries: Zero CO₂ in flight; lifecycle emissions depend on electricity mix for charging and battery manufacturing impact. For short flights and clean grid charging, lifecycle emissions are low. ScienceDirect
4) Infrastructure & logistics
  • SAF: Uses conventional liquid fuel supply chain with some changes (blending, certification). Easier airport rollout than H₂. Reuters
  • Hydrogen: Requires entirely new cryogenic or high-pressure supply, airport tanks, bunkering, safety systems — major capex and coordination. IATA
  • Batteries: Charging and ground-power infrastructure, and battery handling/maintenance logistics. Easier than H₂ but airports need new electrical capacity and safety procedures. IATA
5) Cost
  • SAF: Currently 2–3× fossil jet fuel (varies by pathway); PtL/e-SAF (power-to-liquid) especially costly today but projected to fall with scale and cheap renewables. Example PtL cost projections show potential declines through 2050 but still require major investment. RSC Publishing+1
  • Hydrogen: Green hydrogen is expensive today (electrolysis + renewables); costs must fall substantially. Also add aircraft retooling and airport infrastructure costs. IEA
  • Batteries: Battery packs are costly but prices have been falling; yet for large aircraft the battery mass needed makes it uneconomic until energy density improves. The Innovation

6) Scalability potential
  • SAF: Scalable in near-term using waste oils, then biomass and PtL; constrained by feedstock, land use, and renewable electricity for PtL. Rapid scale-up needed to meet climate targets. Reuters+1
  • Hydrogen: Scalable in principle if green H₂ and renewable power buildout accelerate massively — but this is a system-level scaling problem across power, electrolysis, transport and airports. IEA
  • Batteries: Scales well for small aircraft fleet segments; global battery production can grow but doesn’t solve long-haul or large aircraft without major cell breakthroughs.
Likely timelines (practical adoption windows)
  • Now–2030: SAF scale-up (blends), many demonstrator projects; battery propulsion for small commuter/regional craft; hydrogen pilots/demos at airports. Reuters+1
  • 2030–2045: Widened SAF supply and mandated blending in many regions; hydrogen regional and possibly some short-medium narrow-body use with new airframes and LH₂ infrastructure if policy + investment align; battery aircraft for regional commuter market if energy density improves modestly. EASA+1
  • 2045–2060+: If green hydrogen & new aircraft designs scale, hydrogen could handle a larger share of short/medium haul and (with radical airframe changes) some long-haul; SAF (including PtL) likely needed for many long-haul operations for decades.

Best-fit roles (how each will likely be used together)
  • Advanced SAF = mainstay for long-haul & existing fleet (drop-in or high-blend fuels) while sustainable feedstocks and PtL scale.
  • Hydrogen = complementary: attractive for new regional/short-medium aircraft and potentially for future narrow-body replacements where aircraft are re-designed for LH₂; also strategic for hubs with robust green H₂ supply.
Electric batteries = niche & regional: best for urban air mobility, electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL), and short commuter/regional routes where range/payload fits battery limits.

Key risks & show-stoppers to watch
  • SAF: feedstock sustainability (land-use, biodiversity), insufficient scale and high cost, weak policy signals creating market uncertainty. Financial Times
  • Hydrogen: if green H₂ scale or cost doesn't fall, or airports/manufacturers don’t coordinate on standards, hydrogen will remain niche. Safety/regulatory acceptance is non-trivial. IEA+1
  • Batteries: if energy density improvements stall, batteries remain limited to small aircraft; thermal runaway / fire safety and fast charging at airports are operational hurdles.

    Practical recommendation (for policymakers, airlines, OEMs)
  • Prioritize SAF scale-up now — invest in feedstock chains, PtL pilots, and long-term offtake contracts to lower costs and supply risk. Reuters+1
  • Develop hydrogen readiness in parallel — fund airport pilots, standards, and green-H₂ projects focused on regional hubs and demonstrator aircraft. IATA+1
  • Target batteries for short/rural/regional links — promote high-power charging, small electric aircraft certification, and safety improvements; keep watching battery energy-density advances. ScienceDirect+1
  • Policy — combine mandates (SAF blending), R&D funding, and targeted infrastructure incentives (H₂ hubs, airport electrification) to avoid lock-in and enable a mixed portfolio approach.

Further Reading
Brought to you by concerned citizens from all across the Front Range and beyond.