European SAF Producers Seek Broader Feedstock Options as Imports Supply Most Material

Europe’s sustainable aviation fuel supply depends heavily on imported material, and producers say that dependence could become harder to manage as demand grows. NorSAF and Nova Pangaea Technologies are calling for a dedicated requirement within ReFuelEU to support advanced biofuels made from waste and residue feedstocks.

The concern is visible in the current feedstock mix. In 2024, used cooking oil and waste animal fat together accounted for 98% of the feedstock used for SAF in the EU, according to the European Union Aviation Safety Agency. EASA also reported that more than two-thirds of the feedstock was imported, with over half of those imports coming from China.

Those figures make feedstock sourcing a production issue, not just a question of setting fuel targets. If the same materials must support a much larger SAF market, producers may face tighter access to them. NorSAF founder Janis Kisiels warned at an industry roundtable in Brussels earlier this month that China is developing its domestic SAF industry and may increasingly use its own feedstocks to make fuel at home. He said China has ten SAF plants operational, and raised the possibility that it could eventually sell finished SAF to Europe instead of exporting used cooking oil.

Targets and feedstock choices

Under ReFuelEU, SAF must account for 70% of all fuel consumed by aircraft departing European airports by 2050. Half of that SAF is to be synthetic fuel made from green hydrogen and carbon dioxide captured from industrial flue gas. The rest of the supply is likely to rely substantially on fuels made from hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids, or HEFA, using materials such as used cooking oil and waste animal fat.

That planned mix puts pressure on a narrow group of inputs. HEFA production uses oils and fats that can also be sought by other fuel producers, while the required synthetic fuel follows a different production route based on hydrogen and captured carbon dioxide. The two approaches therefore draw on different resources, but neither removes the need to secure enough suitable inputs as production expands.

NorSAF wants ReFuelEU to include a sub-mandate requiring a specified share of SAF to come from advanced biofuels made using waste and residue feedstocks. The proposal would give that pathway a defined place in the fuel mix. The companies argue that scaling conversion technologies for these materials could broaden the supply base beyond the oils and fats now used so extensively.

Waste conversion and production scale

Jonathan Wood, chief commercial officer of Nova Pangaea Technologies, made a similar case. His company and NorSAF recently signed a memorandum of understanding to build a bioethanol plant in Latvia. Wood said the availability of used vegetable oils will become more constrained as SAF output increases, and called for technologies that turn biomass wastes and residues into liquid fuels to be developed and scaled.

Waste and residue feedstocks are not a single interchangeable input. The source material and conversion process determine what a plant can accept and what product it can make. A broader feedstock base therefore means building and operating production routes suited to different materials, rather than assuming that any facility can switch inputs without changes to its process. The Latvian bioethanol project connects the companies’ stated interest in biomass conversion with a proposed industrial facility, although the available details do not specify its capacity, timetable or feedstock mix.

For producers, the practical question is whether new conversion capacity can turn these less-used materials into fuel at a scale that contributes meaningfully to supply. A dedicated sub-mandate could create a clearer demand signal for that route, but the proposal alone does not establish how much fuel would be produced or what it would cost. Those outcomes depend on the plants built, the materials available to them and the performance of their conversion processes.

Cost and efficiency remain part of the choice

The synthetic SAF requirement has also drawn criticism over production economics. Earlier this year, researchers in Sweden found that producing fuel from green hydrogen and captured carbon dioxide cost nearly twice as much per tonne as a gasification method and was less energy efficient. That comparison adds a process and cost dimension to the feedstock debate: the fuel target specifies a production route, while producers and researchers are also comparing how efficiently different routes convert available resources into fuel.

The Swedish findings do not, by themselves, settle which route should supply future SAF. They do highlight why a larger set of production options matters to companies planning plants: input availability, conversion performance and cost all affect whether a pathway can contribute at scale. The industry’s call is for ReFuelEU to make room for more advanced biofuel production, while the current figures show how much of today’s feedstock supply comes from imports and a small set of materials.

The next practical measure will be whether the proposed sub-mandate is adopted and how it defines the required share. Until those details are established, producers face a clear planning challenge: expand SAF output while securing feedstocks that are available in sufficient quantities and can be processed by the facilities they intend to build.