Forecasts produced by the Ministry of Defence indicate that sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) will remain significantly more expensive than conventional jet fuel for the foreseeable future.
In a written parliamentary answer to Conservative MP Richard Holden, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said modelling by the Royal Air Force and the MOD’s Directorate of Analytics estimates the price of aviation fuels from 2025 through to 2040.
The projections suggest conventional aviation turbine fuel, commonly known as Jet A-1, will cost around $0.56 per litre in 2025. The forecast then fluctuates before gradually rising to around $0.69 per litre by 2040.
Sustainable aviation fuel is projected to remain far more expensive. The MOD estimates SAF will cost approximately $1.62 per litre in 2025, increasing gradually to around $1.81 per litre by 2040.
That leaves a persistent price gap between the two fuels. The modelling suggests SAF will cost just over $1 per litre more than conventional aviation fuel throughout the period covered by the forecast.
According to the figures, the difference is estimated at $1.06 per litre in 2025, narrowing slightly to around $1.02 per litre in the late 2020s before rising again. By the late 2030s and into 2040, the projected gap reaches around $1.12 per litre.
Pollard said the estimates were based on analysis conducted by the RAF and MOD analysts, although the figures remain subject to change due to market volatility.
“The Royal Air Force in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence Directorate Analytics are able to provide an estimated cost of the price per litre of both Conventional Aviation Turbine and Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) in each year from 2025–2040,” he said.
“However, the data in the below table is subject to change dependent on market fluctuation of fuel costs.”
The minister also noted that the figures are expressed in US dollars per litre, reflecting how oil and aviation fuels are typically traded internationally. The eventual cost to the UK would depend on currency exchange rates at the time of purchase.
The projections illustrate the cost challenge associated with moving aviation fleets towards lower-carbon fuels. Sustainable aviation fuels are designed to reduce lifecycle carbon emissions compared with conventional kerosene, but they remain considerably more expensive to produce and supply. For military aviation, the cost differential could become a significant factor if large-scale adoption of SAF is pursued across combat aircraft, transport fleets and training platforms in the coming decades.
Worth it for operational independence.
The quicker we got off oil the quicker we can stop giving a f**k about the Middle East, Russia and the USA. I started driving an EV last year, it’s great. Zero worries at the pump for me now. Panels on my house charging it up right now.
China is doing this rapidly now for security reasons. Yet the Daily Mail is obsessed with the UK continuing to buy dinosaur juice form unstable regimes, I wonder if it has anything to do with the financial interests of those unstable regimes and the ownership of the Daily Mail 🤔
Without oil the world cannot produce: Plastics and polymers, synthetic fibers, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, industrial products, fertilizer, computers, etc. Oh, and that EV you are so proud of. A Tesla requires 4,800 liters of oil to manufacture. Good old Jim. He wants the world to revert to the Stone Age.
Not sure if you have access to Google but if you type in it you will find that every product you claim needs oil has a synthetic alternative. I’m not sure why you think fertiliser needs oil. Can you explain?
I presume you mean natural gas. Hydrogen derived fertiliser also already exists.
The petrol requirements to make a Tesla are zero. You’re quoting an energy equivalent figure in litres of petrol. Can I tell you how much electrical energy equivalent is required to make 4,800 litres of petrol?
Just a guess here but do you read the Daily Mail yourself?
When you pay for fuel you’re really paying for energy. The cost advantage of fossil fuel is down to the fact that it represents the distilled energy of the sun over many thousands of years. If you want to produce ‘synthetic’ fuel then you need to input the energy necessary to construct polymer chains from small molecules, which means that the cost of production can only hope to compete with the cost of refining oil if the energy input is essentially free. Fortunately the MOD can afford to switch to massively overpriced fuel because it’s being properly funded by the Treasury and isn’t in any financial difficulties at all…
That is the correct analysis.
I’m all for EV’s and cutting carbon footprint etc but I cannot for the life of me understand this one. It would be far cheaper to keep a strategic reserve of aviation fuel like we used to in the cold war.
The amount of electrical energy used to make the synthetic fuels is loopy.
ATM we need to focus on the fundamentals of people, platforms and effectors….until such time as someone has the guts to actually spend the monies required to sort the massive mess out. And that will mean cutting some expensive niche capabilities as well as spending a lot more money I am afraid.