The government is being urged to support companies in investing in low-carbon sustainable aviation fuels (SAF).
The call came today from the Commons transport committee as it suggested that ministers change their approach towards picking specific technology solutions decarbonising UK transport or risk failing to hit targets for cutting emissions.
The cross-party committee’s ‘Fuelling the Future’ report recommends the government invests in SAFs, which include both biofuels and synthetic fuels, using a ‘contracts for difference’ model.
This is where the government provides a company with capital for the upfront costs of developing a technology, while guaranteeing the price it will pay for the SAF when it comes on stream.
The committee added: “Having taken evidence from expert witnesses, the committee concluded that SAF are most likely to become the aviation sector’s fuel of choice to replace high polluting hydrocarbons.
“SAF can be used with little or no change to engine technology or airport infrastructure, so can be cheaply and easily implemented across the world.”
But it added that electric batteries are unlikely to become small or light enough to make them suitable for anything beyond short-haul flights.
Meanwhile, hydrogen is likely to demand large amounts of storage space and is highly flammable.
Transport committee chair Iain Stewart MP (pictured) said: “The committee heard time and again from experts that the government’s solution-neutral approach was understandable up to a point.
“But the time has now come for ministers, using the knowledge of alternative fuels we now have across all modes of transport, to show leadership and pick winners.
“With aviation – widely seen as one of the most high-polluting modes of transport for consumers – the government should invest in sustainable aviation fuels to help galvanise innovation and progress in the sector.”
“We also strongly urge the government to crack on with projects for electrifying train lines throughout the UK, or identify alternative lower-carbon motive power solutions where full electrification is not economically viable.”