Fly clean, not less: Towards a France that produces its own e-fuels

A few days ago, the think tank The Shift Project and the organisation Aero Decarbo published the report “Flying without fossil fuels” [1]. The analysis is nothing if not clear: it posits that Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) will not be available in time or in sufficient quantities and comes to the categorical conclusion: reduce air traffic.

There are essentially two ways of producing SAFs: bioSAF derived from biomass, and e-SAF, or e-fuels, which are produced from hydrogen obtained through water electrolysis combined with carbon of biogenic origin or captured directly from the air.

We should acknowledge the analytical rigour and commitment to accuracy demonstrated in this report. The figures on which the analysis is based are fairly close to those assessed in the Air and Space Academy’s 2024 report on decarbonising air transport [2]. However, the chosen approach leads the reader to believe that the task is impossible instead of showing them viable pathways. Rather than listing reasons not to proceed, we should examine possible e-fuel production trajectories, particularly in France, where our highly decarbonised electricity surplus could support a genuine industrial plan.

The report reiterates some obvious points a– that air transport faces a dual challenge of climate change and supply –and presents a reduction in traffic as obligatory, on the grounds that SAF – and especially e-SAF – would require excessive amounts of electricity. It postulates that replacing today’s global kerosene consumption by 2050 would require around 10,000 TWh of electricity – equivalent to around a third of current electricity production. However, this figure, held up as insurmountable, represents an extreme scenario in which 100% of kerosene would be replaced by e-SAF overnight, without any efficiency gains or sector hybridisation, nor any consideration of the expected growth in low-carbon electricity production by 2050. The scale may be daunting compared to today’s electricity situation, but the picture is very different when viewed in light of electricity generation in 2050.

So, what do international scenarios actually indicate? The International Energy Agency (IEA) emphasises the need for a substantial increase in low-carbon electricity capacity in an increasingly electrified world, where a growing proportion of users currently reliant on fossil fuels are switching to electricity. According to the updated NZE 2050 pathway, electricity will become the backbone of the energy system, with renewable capacity set to triple by 2030 and the use of low-emission fuels (such as bioenergy, low-carbon hydrogen, synthetic fuels) expected to quadruple by 2035. While the scale of the effort is colossal, the physical and industrial infrastructure is progressing in this direction. In other words: applying 2024 ratios to 2050 automatically makes the task seem insurmountable. [3]

France is not the world: a low-carbon electricity mix well-suited to producing e-fuels

The report recognises that low-carbon electricity is required for e-SAF to significantly reduce emissions across the entire life cycle. The good news is that this is precisely the case in France. In 2024, 99.5% of domestic electricity consumption was met by low-carbon generation, and the observed carbon intensity fell to one of the lowest levels in the world. Nuclear generation recovered (to approximately 362 TWh), hydroelectric power reached its highest level since 2013, and wind and solar power surpassed the 150 TWh mark for renewables. French electricity has returned to a structural profile that is conducive to climate-friendly, energy-intensive uses.

Furthermore, Europe has set a clear course with ReFuelEU Aviation [4]: a mandate setting the share of SAF at 2% in 2025, gradually rising to 70% by 2050, including an e-SAF share of 0.7% by 2030 and 35% by 2050. While the pace may be open to debate, the framework is in place, pushing the ecosystem towards industrialisation rather than succumbing to defeatism.

We cannot ignore the constraints. Water electrolysis consumes a great deal of electricity, and while the first industrial Direct Air Capture (DAC) projects are becoming operational around the world, the technology is not yet mature enough for large-scale deployment. It should be noted, however, that France has sufficient biogenic CO₂ to develop a first stage of industrial synthetic fuel until 2040-45, which allows time for DAC industrialisation.

Faut-il, parce que le démarrage est lent et coûteux, conclure qu’il est impossible ? Historiquement, aucune filière énergétique d’ampleur n’a émergé sans cette phase de coûts élevés et d’effet de série à construire (pensons au solaire et à l’éolien).

Should we conclude that it is impossible simply because the initial phase is slow and costly? Historically, no major energy sector has emerged without first experiencing this phase of high costs and the need to ramp up production (consider solar and wind power, for example).

France therefore has three key strengths:

• An exceptional low-carbon base (nuclear + hydroelectric power) combined with rising renewable energy sources, which will continue developing, with troughs in demand and peaks in renewable energy generation. It is during these periods that electrolysis and fuel synthesis make sense, particularly when combined with storage and system management [5];
• A European framework that recognises e-fuels and regulates their traceability, enabling the sector to invest with clarity;
• A world-class energy and aerospace industry, capable of deploying integrated supply chains (electrolysis, high-purity CO₂, synthesis and logistics) and incorporating incremental innovation (improved efficiency, system integration and direct air capture).

Public debate must stop placing certain aspects in opposition

Pitting frugality/sobriety against technology is a dead end. Yes, air ticket prices cannot be kept at their currently artificially low level if we are to fund the transition; yes, all efficiency measures must be pursued, involving disruptive configurations, operations and air traffic control. However, treating a reduction in traffic as the sole solution amounts to ignoring:

• the urgent need to decarbonise, as set out in the European mandate requiring the use of advanced sustainable fuels, and therefore their production;
• the Franco-European electricity infrastructure (a very low carbon footprint in France and growing access to renewable energy), which minimises the carbon footprint of locally produced e-SAF;
• the goal of energy independence: should we remain dependent on imported kerosene, or build a national/European e-fuel sector that could one day be exported?
• the global citizen’s desire and need to travel.

Furthermore, the current high cost of SAF is not enough to rule out the sector. A comparison of its price with the current cost of kerosene (and what might that be by 2050?) reveals a nascent market, equipment bottlenecks and, in Europe, a concept of procurement contracts that has at times led to opportunistic margin increases within an oligopolistic supply chain. A rational response would require transparency tools, competitive tendering and long-term contracts between producers and airlines. Governments could also provide investment incentives similar to those offered for solar power or batteries. [6]

Conclusion

Several aspects of the report are thorough and useful, such as prioritising the use of biomass, highlighting the varying carbon footprints of different bio-SAF, and emphasising the need for genuinely low-carbon electricity for e-SAF. However, the way the figures are presented (extreme cases compared to the present, focusing on barriers and dramatising constraints) forces the conclusion that sobriety should take precedence over industrialisation rather than accompanying it. This bias does not help France position itself in the global race for e-fuels. There are better ways to proceed: charting trajectories, setting milestones, testing techno-economic models, and learning as we go.

Let us not forget that, while the debate is often framed in environmental terms, it is also geostrategic. Abandoning the industrial production of synthetic fuels would mean accepting a new form of energy dependency. In contrast, developing an e-SAF sector would guarantee sovereignty by securing future supply, preserving industrial excellence and creating highly skilled jobs.

The real debate is not: “Can we decarbonise aviation?” – we must. A more useful debate is: “How can we do so while respecting physical constraints and maximising the economic and strategic benefits for France and for Europe?” The answer lies in precisely mapping out pathways for the production of e-fuels.

Furthermore, making traffic reduction (an area in which, according to the report’s authors, France should apparently lead by example) the key driver of decarbonisation in the aviation sector would force a strategic sector into decline without offering the slightest guarantee that global traffic would become carbon-neutral.

Rather than closing off possibilities by imposing restrictions, we should open them up by charting a course. With its low-carbon electricity, engineering heritage and aerospace industry, France has everything it needs to become a European pioneer in e-fuels. Ultimately, this is not about promising the impossible: it is about making the possible a reality [7].

Key references

• [1] Aéro Décarbo / The Shift Project, “Flying without fossil fuels — Summary”, February 2026.
• [2] Air and Space Academy, Dossier 55: “Decarbonising air transport by 2050: a question of energy”.
• [3] AIE, World Energy Outlook 2025 — NZE update
• [4] European Commission, ReFuelEU Aviation (Regulation 2023/2405)
• [5] RTE, 2024 Electricity Report
• [6] IATA, press releases 2024–2025
• [7] Presentation by Daniel Iracane, French Academy of Technologies, Collège de France 2026