pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.12080 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph

Recognition: unknown

E-biofuels reduce the cost of achieving emissions targets in hard-to-electrify sectors

Yunlong Zhang , Markus Millinger , Fredrik Hedenus , Karin Pettersson , Tom Brown
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 14:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph
keywords e-biofuelsemissions targetshard-to-electrify sectorsbiomass utilizationrenewable hydrogenenergy system modelcost savingsaviation and shipping fuels
0
0 comments X

The pith

E-biofuels cut total system costs up to 2.7% and liquid fuel costs over 10% for strict emissions targets when biomass is scarce and fossil fuels are restricted.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests whether e-biofuels, created by feeding renewable hydrogen into biomass conversion, offer a cheaper path to emissions cuts in aviation, shipping, and similar sectors. It finds that these fuels become the lowest-cost option precisely when biomass supplies are tight and rules bar fossil fuels because of limited carbon storage or high renewable mandates. The analysis relies on a full European energy system model that tracks interactions across power, heat, transport, and industry. Savings arise because e-biofuels use biogenic carbon directly instead of first capturing CO2 and then making synthetic fuels from it. This result matters for planners who must decide how to allocate limited biomass and whether to build extensive carbon capture infrastructure.

Core claim

In a sector-coupled European energy system model, e-biofuels prove cost-effective for stringent emissions targets under limited biomass availability and ineligibility of fossil fuels due to carbon sequestration limits or high renewable fuel mandates. By raising direct use of biogenic carbon rather than synthesizing fuels from captured CO2, they deliver savings in fuel production and carbon capture that lower total system costs by up to 2.7 percent and liquid fuel costs by more than 10 percent. The fuels also function as a hedge against uncertainty in biomass, hydrogen, and carbon storage supplies.

What carries the argument

e-biofuels formed by adding renewable hydrogen to biomass conversion processes to raise biogenic carbon utilization, compared inside a sector-coupled energy system model against alternatives under biomass limits and policy constraints that exclude fossil fuels.

If this is right

  • Total system costs fall by as much as 2.7 percent under the modeled constraints.
  • Liquid fuel costs decline by more than 10 percent.
  • E-biofuels act as insurance against shortfalls in biomass, hydrogen, or carbon storage.
  • EU fuel regulations gain a clear role for hybrid biomass-hydrogen fuels when fossil options are disallowed.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Regulators could adjust renewable fuel mandates to include e-biofuels explicitly as a bridge while carbon storage capacity remains uncertain.
  • Similar modeling applied to other continents could test whether the same cost advantage appears outside Europe.
  • Reduced need for carbon capture infrastructure might free capital for other decarbonization measures in the energy transition.

Load-bearing premise

The European energy system model accurately forecasts future technology costs, biomass availability, hydrogen supply, carbon storage capacity, and enforcement of policies that rule out fossil fuels.

What would settle it

A real-world scenario in which biomass supplies prove larger than modeled, carbon storage capacity allows more fossil fuel use, or renewable mandates are weaker, resulting in no cost reduction or even higher costs when e-biofuels are adopted.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.12080 by Fredrik Hedenus, Karin Pettersson, Markus Millinger, Tom Brown, Yunlong Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic overview of three biomass-based renewable liquid fuel production pathways considered in this study: (i) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Liquid fuel mix in the European energy system under different annual carbon sequestration (CS). Panels (a) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Effects of including e-biofuels on total system costs, fuel-conversion capital, and carbon-capture capacity under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Merit order of liquid fuels using in aviation under baseline scenarios with carbon sequestration (CS) potentials of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: E-biofuels fuel supply and system cost comparison for different scenarios. Panel (a) shows the impact of introducing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sensitivity of e-biofuels deployment and system cost to biomass import, electrolyser capacity and CO2 sequestration potential. Panel (a) shows the e-biofuels share (%) under the with e-biofuels setting, and panel (b) shows the system cost difference rate (%) between with e-biofuels and without e-biofuels. Each panel reports results for three electrolyser capacity limits (1800, 2500, and 3500 TWh/a). The x-… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Sensitivity analysis under different carbon sequestration potentials. Panel (a) shows e-biofuel deployment and total [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Renewable liquid fuels are essential for achieving emissions targets for hard-to-electrify sectors such as aviation and shipping. While biofuels and synthetic e-fuels have been well-studied, e-biofuels, produced by adding renewable hydrogen to biomass conversion to better utilise the biogenic carbon, remain understudied and lack a clear role in EU fuel regulations. In this paper, using a sector-coupled European energy system model, we find that e-biofuels are cost-effective to meet stringent emissions targets if biomass availability is limited and fossil fuels are ineligible, either due to limited carbon sequestration capacity or to high renewable fuel mandates. By directly increasing utilisation of biogenic carbon instead of synthesising fuels based on captured $CO_2$, there are savings from fuel production and carbon capture that reduce total system costs by up to 2.7% and liquid fuel costs by more than 10%. Our results highlight the role of e-biofuels as a potential hedge against uncertainty in biomass, hydrogen, and carbon storage availability, as well as evolving policy implementation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper uses a sector-coupled European energy system optimization model to argue that e-biofuels (biomass-to-liquid pathways augmented with renewable hydrogen) become cost-effective for stringent emissions targets in aviation and shipping when biomass availability is constrained and fossil fuels are ruled out by limited carbon sequestration capacity or high renewable fuel mandates. By increasing direct use of biogenic carbon rather than relying on direct air capture for e-fuels, the model reports total system cost reductions of up to 2.7% and liquid fuel cost reductions exceeding 10%. The results position e-biofuels as a hedge against uncertainty in biomass, hydrogen, and CCS availability.

Significance. If the quantitative results are robust, the finding supplies a concrete, model-based rationale for including e-biofuels in EU renewable fuel policy even under tight biomass caps. The modest system-wide savings (2.7%) are policy-relevant because they arise precisely in the high-stringency, low-biomass, low-CCS regime that many net-zero scenarios must confront. The work also supplies falsifiable scenario comparisons that future studies can test with updated cost or resource data.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3 and §4] §3 (Model formulation) and §4 (Scenario definitions): the central 2.7% system-cost and >10% liquid-fuel-cost claims rest on specific exogenous values for the biomass availability cap, carbon sequestration limit, and e-biofuel conversion efficiencies (including hydrogen integration). These parameters are listed as free in the axiom ledger and are not accompanied by a systematic sensitivity analysis or literature-derived ranges; if any are optimistic relative to 2050 projections, the reported savings disappear.
  2. [§4.2] §4.2 (Results for limited-biomass, no-fossil cases): the optimization assigns lower total cost to e-biofuel pathways than to DAC-based e-fuels, but the manuscript does not report the shadow prices or marginal costs of the binding biomass and CCS constraints, nor does it show how the cost advantage changes when those constraints are relaxed by 20–30%. Without this, it is impossible to judge whether the advantage is structural or an artifact of the chosen caps.
  3. [§2] §2 (Data and technology assumptions): no table or appendix lists the full set of technology cost, efficiency, and resource-potential inputs with sources and uncertainty ranges. The abstract and results therefore cannot be reproduced or stress-tested against alternative 2050 cost trajectories for electrolyzers, biomass gasification, or CCS.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 3 and Table 2] Figure 3 and Table 2: axis labels and legend entries for “e-biofuel” versus “e-fuel” pathways are visually similar; a clearer color or line-style distinction would help readers trace the cost differences.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states “up to 2.7%” and “more than 10%” without specifying the exact scenario pair that produces each number; adding a parenthetical reference to the relevant scenario label would improve precision.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight important aspects of robustness and transparency. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the analysis and reproducibility.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3 and §4] §3 (Model formulation) and §4 (Scenario definitions): the central 2.7% system-cost and >10% liquid-fuel-cost claims rest on specific exogenous values for the biomass availability cap, carbon sequestration limit, and e-biofuel conversion efficiencies (including hydrogen integration). These parameters are listed as free in the axiom ledger and are not accompanied by a systematic sensitivity analysis or literature-derived ranges; if any are optimistic relative to 2050 projections, the reported savings disappear.

    Authors: We agree that the reported cost savings could be sensitive to these exogenous parameters. In the revised manuscript, we add a dedicated sensitivity analysis section that varies the biomass availability cap, CCS limit, and e-biofuel conversion efficiencies (including hydrogen integration) across literature-derived ranges for 2050 projections. We also cite the sources for the base-case values and show that the cost advantage of e-biofuels persists under a range of plausible assumptions, particularly in the high-stringency, low-biomass regime. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 (Results for limited-biomass, no-fossil cases): the optimization assigns lower total cost to e-biofuel pathways than to DAC-based e-fuels, but the manuscript does not report the shadow prices or marginal costs of the binding biomass and CCS constraints, nor does it show how the cost advantage changes when those constraints are relaxed by 20–30%. Without this, it is impossible to judge whether the advantage is structural or an artifact of the chosen caps.

    Authors: We acknowledge that shadow prices and constraint-relaxation tests would clarify whether the advantage is structural. The revised version now reports the shadow prices on the biomass and CCS constraints for the key scenarios. We also add results for relaxed constraints (+20% and +30% on biomass availability and CCS capacity) and demonstrate that the e-biofuel cost advantage diminishes as constraints are loosened, confirming it arises from improved biogenic-carbon utilization under tight limits rather than from the specific cap values chosen. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§2] §2 (Data and technology assumptions): no table or appendix lists the full set of technology cost, efficiency, and resource-potential inputs with sources and uncertainty ranges. The abstract and results therefore cannot be reproduced or stress-tested against alternative 2050 cost trajectories for electrolyzers, biomass gasification, or CCS.

    Authors: We agree that full transparency of inputs is essential for reproducibility. The revised manuscript includes a new appendix table that lists all technology costs, efficiencies, resource potentials, and policy constraints, together with their sources and available uncertainty ranges. This table enables readers to reproduce the base results and to test alternative 2050 cost trajectories for electrolyzers, biomass gasification, and CCS. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in forward model optimization of e-biofuel pathways

full rationale

The paper derives its cost savings (2.7% system, >10% liquid fuels) by optimizing a sector-coupled European energy system model against exogenous technology costs, conversion efficiencies, biomass caps, hydrogen supply, and policy constraints that exclude fossils. These are forward scenario runs, not parameter fits to the target metrics or self-referential definitions. No equations reduce the reported savings to inputs by construction, no load-bearing self-citations are invoked for uniqueness or ansatzes, and no known results are merely renamed. The chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only access prevents a complete audit; the central claim rests on the validity of a sector-coupled optimization model whose internal cost curves, resource potentials, and policy constraints are not enumerated here.

free parameters (2)
  • biomass availability limit
    Scenarios assume limited biomass that makes e-biofuels cost-effective; exact numerical bound not stated in abstract.
  • carbon sequestration capacity
    Limited capacity is invoked to render fossil fuels ineligible; magnitude not provided.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The sector-coupled European energy system model accurately represents future technology costs, efficiencies, and inter-sector linkages.
    All quantitative results are generated inside this model.
  • domain assumption High renewable fuel mandates or limited carbon storage will render fossil fuels ineligible in the modeled policy scenarios.
    This condition is required for the cost-effectiveness finding.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5495 in / 1571 out tokens · 54604 ms · 2026-05-10T14:52:24.328800+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Millinger, F

    M. Millinger, F. Hedenus, E. Zeyen, F. Neumann, L. Reichenberg, G. Berndes, Diversity of biomass usage pathways to achieve emissions targets in the European energy system, Nature Energy 10 (Febru- ary) (2025) 226–242.doi:10.1038/s41560-024-01693-6. URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-024-01693-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41560-024-01693-6 2025

  2. [2]

    Bachorz, P

    C. Bachorz, P. C. Verpoort, G. Luderer, F. Ueckerdt, Exploring techno-economic landscapes of abatement options for hard-to-electrify sectors, Nature Communications 16 (1) (2025) 3984.doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-59277-1. URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-59277-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-025-59277-1 2025

  3. [3]

    URLhttp://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2405/oj

    European Union, Regulation (EU) 2023/2405 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 on ensuring a level playing field for sustainable air transport (ReFuelEU Aviation), Official Journal of the European Union 2405 (401) (2023) 1–30. URLhttp://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2405/oj

    2023

  4. [4]

    URLhttp://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1805/oj

    European Union, Regulation (EU) 2023/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 September 2023 on the use of renewable and low-carbon fuels in maritime transport, and amending Directive 2009/16/EC (Text with EEA relevance), Official Journal of the European Union 66 (July) (2023) 48–100. URLhttp://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1805/oj

    2023

  5. [5]

    B. K. Mignone, L. Clarke, J. A. Edmonds, A. Gurgel, H. J. Herzog, J. X. Johnson, D. S. Mallapragada, H. McJeon, J. Morris, P. R. O’Rourke, S. Paltsev, S. K. Rose, D. C. Steinberg, A. Venkatesh, Drivers and implications of alternative routes to fuels decarbonization in net-zero energy systems, Nature Communications 15 (1) (2024).doi:10.1038/s41467-024-47059-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-47059-0 2024

  6. [6]

    Millinger, L

    M. Millinger, L. Reichenberg, F. Hedenus, G. Berndes, E. Zeyen, T. Brown, Are biofuel mandates cost-effective? – An analysis of transport fuels and biomass usage to achieve emissions targets in the European energy system, Applied Energy 326 (2022) 120016.doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.120016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.120016 2022

  7. [7]

    Schreyer, F

    F. Schreyer, F. Ueckerdt, R. Pietzcker, A. Odenweller, A. Merfort, R. Rodrigues, J. Strefler, F. Lécuyer, G. Luderer, From net-zero to zero-fossil in transforming the EU energy system, Nature Communications 16 (1) (2025) 10700.doi:10.1038/s41467-025-65930-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-025-65930-2 2025

  8. [8]

    S.Mesfun, G. Gustafsson, A.Larsson, M.Samavati, Electrificationof Biorefinery Concepts forImproved Productivity — Yield, Economic and GHG Performances, Energies 16 (21) (2023) 7436.doi:10.3390/ en16217436

    2023

  9. [9]

    Furusjö, S

    E. Furusjö, S. Mesfun, M. Samavati, A. Larsson, G. Gustafsson, C. Gustavsson, S. Hermansson, J. Ols- son, P. Sundell, K. Kairento, P.-A. Karlsson, L. Werner, J. Ahlström, C. Hamon, T. Gunneberg, Bio-electro fuels: Hybrid technology for improved resource efficiency, Report FDOS 45:2022, RISE Research Institutes of Sweden, published within the f3 – Swedish ...

    2022

  10. [10]

    E.deChambost, L.Merceron, G.Boissonnet, Frombiofuelstoe-fuels: anassessmentoftechno-economic and environmental performance, Sustainable Energy & Fuels (2026).doi:10.1039/D5SE00786K. 18

    work page doi:10.1039/d5se00786k 2026

  11. [11]

    European Commission, Q&A on the Implementation of Hydrogen Delegated Acts, Tech. Rep. Version 1.0, European Commission, draft guidance document (2024). URLhttps://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/8f5f9424-a7ef-4dbf-b914-1af1d12ff5d2/library/ ca8efd4d-cb44-4aec-914d-3d95f95ea293/details

    2024

  12. [12]

    S. Bube, L. Sens, C. Drawer, M. Kaltschmitt, Power and biogas to methanol – a techno-economic anal- ysis of carbon-maximized green methanol production via two reforming approaches, Energy Conversion and Management 304 (2024) 118220.doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2024.118220

    work page doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2024.118220 2024

  13. [13]

    Hillestad, M

    M. Hillestad, M. Ostadi, G. A. Serrano, E. Rytter, B. Austbø, J. Pharoah, O. S. Burheim, Improving carbon efficiency and profitability of the biomass to liquid process with hydrogen from renewable power, Fuel 234 (2018) 1431–1451.doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2018.08.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2018.08.004 2018

  14. [14]

    Ostadi, E

    M. Ostadi, E. Rytter, M. Hillestad, Boosting carbon efficiency of the biomass to liquid process with hydrogen from power: The effect of H2/CO ratio to the Fischer-Tropsch reactors on the production and power consumption, Biomass and Bioenergy 127 (2019) 105282.doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2019. 105282

    work page doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2019 2019

  15. [15]

    Anetjärvi, E

    E. Anetjärvi, E. Vakkilainen, K. Melin, Benefits of hybrid production of e-methanol in connection with biomass gasification, Energy 276 (2023) 127202.doi:10.1016/j.energy.2023.127202

    work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2023.127202 2023

  16. [16]

    Katla-Milewska, S

    D. Katla-Milewska, S. M. Nazir, A. Skorek-Osikowska, Synthetic natural gas (SNG) production with higher carbon recovery from biomass: Techno-economic assessment, Energy Conversion and Manage- ment 300 (2024) 117895.doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117895

    work page doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117895 2024

  17. [17]

    J. Park, M. Qi, J. Baek, D. Choi, E. E. Kwon, H. Cho, J. Lee, Bio-e-methanol production via biogas partialoxidationintegratedwithsolidoxideelectrolyzercell: Acomprehensiveenergy, exergy, economic, and environmental (4E) analysis, Energy Conversion and Management 341 (2025) 120052.doi:10. 1016/j.enconman.2025.120052

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    A. D. Korberg, S. Brynolf, M. Grahn, I. R. Skov, Techno-economic assessment of advanced fuels and propulsion systems in future fossil-free ships, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 142 (March) (2021) 110861.doi:10.1016/j.rser.2021.110861. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110861

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rser.2021.110861 2021

  19. [19]

    Grahn, E

    M. Grahn, E. Malmgren, A. D. Korberg, M. Taljegard, J. E. Anderson, S. Brynolf, J. Hansson, I. R. Skov, T. J. Wallington, Review of electrofuel feasibility — cost and environmental impact, Progress in Energy 4 (3) (2022) 032010.doi:10.1088/2516-1083/ac7571

    work page doi:10.1088/2516-1083/ac7571 2022

  20. [20]

    Odenweller, F

    A. Odenweller, F. Ueckerdt, G. F. Nemet, M. Jensterle, G. Luderer, Probabilistic feasibility space of scaling up green hydrogen supply, Nature Energy (sep 2022).doi:10.1038/s41560-022-01097-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41560-022-01097-4 2022

  21. [21]

    Cherp, V

    A. Cherp, V. Vinichenko, J. Tosun, J. A. Gordon, J. Jewell, National growth dynamics of wind and solar power compared to the growth required for global climate targets, Nature Energy 6 (7) (2021) 742–754.doi:10.1038/s41560-021-00863-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41560-021-00863-0 2021

  22. [22]

    M. R. Allen, P. Friedlingstein, C. A. Girardin, S. Jenkins, Y. Malhi, E. Mitchell-Larson, G. P. Peters, L. Rajamani, Net zero: science, origins, and implications, Annual Review of Environment and Resources 47 (1) (2022) 849–887.doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-112320-105050

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-112320-105050 2022

  23. [23]

    In force

    European Commission, Regulation (EU) 2024/3012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 establishing a Union certification framework for permanent carbon removals, carbon farming and carbon storage in products, Official Journal of the European Union, L 2024/3012, 6 December 2024, pE/92/2024/REV/1. In force. Text with EEA relevance...

    2024

  24. [24]

    Kazlou, A

    T. Kazlou, A. Cherp, J. Jewell, Feasible deployment of carbon capture and storage and the requirements of climate targets, Nature Climate Change 14 (10) (2024) 1047–1055.doi:10.1038/s41558-024- 02104-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41558-024- 2024

  25. [25]

    Grant, A

    N. Grant, A. Gambhir, S. Mittal, C. Greig, A. C. Köberle, Enhancing the realism of decarbonisa- tion scenarios with practicable regional constraints on CO2 storage capacity, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 120 (August) (2022).doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103766

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103766 2022

  26. [26]

    Gidden, S

    M. Gidden, S. Joshi, J. Armitage, A.-B. Christ, M. Boettcher, E. Brutschin, A. Koberle, H. J. Schellnhu- ber, C.-F. Schleussner, K. Riahi, J. Rogelj, A prudent planetary boundary for geological carbon storage, Nature 645 (September) (2025).doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09423-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09423-y 2025

  27. [27]

    Glaum, F

    P. Glaum, F. Neumann, M. Millinger, T. Brown, min-meoh-economy: Minimal methanol economy code repository, gitHub repository, accessed 2025-11-21 (2025). URLhttps://github.com/p-glaum/min-MeOH-economy/tree/master

    2025

  28. [28]

    Pettersson, C

    K. Pettersson, C. Wickman, Classification and sustainability criteria for renewable fuels in the EU – what actually applies?, Tech. Rep. P2023-00841, Research Institutes of Sweden (RISE), Gothenburg, Sweden, final project report commissioned by the Swedish Energy Agency (Energimyndigheten) (2025). URLhttps://www.ri.se/sites/default/files/2025-10/Slutrappo...

    2025

  29. [29]

    P. Ruiz, W. Nijs, D. Tarvydas, A. Sgobbi, A. Zucker, R. Pilli, R. Jonsson, A. Camia, C. Thiel, C. Hoyer- Klick, et al., ENSPRESO – an open, EU-28 wide, transparent and coherent database of wind, solar and biomass energy potentials, Energy Strategy Reviews 26 (2019) 100379.doi:10.1016/j.esr.2019. 100379

    work page doi:10.1016/j.esr.2019 2019

  30. [30]

    URLhttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025PC0524

    European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality, legislative proposal (2025). URLhttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025PC0524

    2021

  31. [31]

    URLhttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2022:230:FIN

    European Commission, REPowerEU Plan, Communication from the Commission (May 2022). URLhttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2022:230:FIN

    2022

  32. [32]

    F.Ueckerdt, C.Bauer, A.Dirnaichner, J.Everall, R.Sacchi, G.Luderer, Potentialandrisksofhydrogen- based e-fuels in climate change mitigation, Nature Climate Change 11 (2021) 384–393.doi:10.1038/ s41558-021-01032-7

    2021

  33. [33]

    PE/45/2024/REV/1

    European Commission, Regulation (EU) 2024/1735 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on establishing a framework of measures for strengthening Europe’s net-zero technology manufacturing ecosystem and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1724, Official Journal of the European Union, L 1735, 28 June 2024, text with EEA relevance. PE/45/2024...

    2024

  34. [34]

    Kumar, R

    S. Kumar, R. Palange, C. De Blasio, Advancements in gasification technologies: insights into modeling studies, power-to-X applications and sustainability assessments, Sustainable Energy & Fuels 9 (18) (2025) 4793–4831.doi:10.1039/D5SE00504C

    work page doi:10.1039/d5se00504c 2025

  35. [35]

    Patel, T

    R. Patel, T. Rajaraman, P. H. Rana, N. J. Ambegaonkar, S. Patel, A review on techno-economic analysis of lignocellulosic biorefinery producing biofuels and high-value products, Results in Chemistry 13 (2025) 102052.doi:10.1016/j.rechem.2025.102052

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rechem.2025.102052 2025

  36. [36]

    GENA Solutions, Analysis and Insights: 57,https://www.genasolutions.com/analysis_and_ insights/57, accessed: 2026-01-02 (2025). 20

    2026

  37. [37]

    Martulli, K

    A. Martulli, K. Brandt, F. Allroggen, R. Malina, The potential scale-up of sustainable aviation fuels production capacity to meet global and EU policy targets, Nature Communications (2025).doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-58955-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-025-58955-2 2025

  38. [38]

    Dimanchev, S

    E. Dimanchev, S. Gabriel, S.-E. Fleten, F. Pecci, M. Korpås, Choosing climate policies in a second-best world with incomplete risk markets, Available at SSRN 5636369 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    20–33 (2023)

    European Commission, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/1185 of 10 February 2023 supple- menting Directive (EU) 2018/2001 by establishing a minimum threshold for greenhouse gas emissions savings of recycled carbon fuels and specifying a methodology for assessing greenhouse gas emissions savings from RFNBOs and recycled carbon fuels, Official Journa...

    2023

  40. [40]

    Advances in Engineering Software42(12), 1020–1034 (2011)

    J. Beiron, S. Harvey, H. Thunman, Locked in on RFNBOs – Will EU mandates for drop-in synthetic aviation fuels lead to decreased energy- and cost-efficiency?, Fuel 406 (2026) 137181.doi:10.1016/j. fuel.2025.137181

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2026

  41. [41]

    Brown, D

    T. Brown, D. Schlachtberger, A. Kies, S. Schramm, M. Greiner, Synergies of sector coupling and transmission reinforcement in a cost-optimised, highly renewable European energy system, Energy 160 (2018) 720–739.doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.222

    work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.222 2018

  42. [42]

    Brown, M

    T. Brown, M. Victoria, E. Zeyen, F. Hofmann, F. Neumann, M. Frysztacki, J. Hampp, D. Schlacht- berger, J. Hörsch, A. Schledorn, C. Schauß, K. van Greevenbroek, M. Millinger, P. Glaum, B. Xiong, T. Seibold, PyPSA-Eur: An open sector-coupled optimisation model of the European energy system (2026).doi:10.5281/zenodo.18985259. URLhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenod...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.18985259 2026

  43. [43]

    Neumann, E

    F. Neumann, E. Zeyen, M. Victoria, T. Brown, The potential role of a hydrogen network in Europe, Joule 7 (8) (2023) 1793–1817.doi:10.1016/j.joule.2023.06.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.joule.2023.06.016 2023

  44. [44]

    Neumann, V

    F. Neumann, V. Hagenmeyer, T. Brown, Assessments of linear power flow and transmission loss approximations in coordinated capacity expansion problems, Applied Energy 314 (2022) 118859. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.118859

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.118859 2022

  45. [45]

    Mantzos, T

    L. Mantzos, T. Wiesenthal, N. Matei, S. Tchung-Ming, M. Rozsai, H. Russ, A. S. Ramirez, JRC- IDEES: Integrated Database of the European Energy Sector, Methodological Note (2017).doi:10. 2760/182725

    2017

  46. [46]

    Victoria, E

    M. Victoria, E. Zeyen, T. Brown, Speed of technological transformations required in Europe to achieve different climate goals, Joule 6 (5) (2022) 1066–1086.doi:10.1016/j.joule.2022.04.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.joule.2022.04.016 2022

  47. [47]

    Zeyen, V

    E. Zeyen, V. Hagenmeyer, T. Brown, Mitigating heat demand peaks in buildings in a highly renewable European energy system, Energy 231 (2021) 120784.doi:10.1016/j.energy.2021.120784

    work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2021.120784 2021

  48. [48]

    European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), ENSPRESO – INTEGRATED DATA,http://data.europa.eu/89h/88d1c405-0448-4c9e-b565-3c30c9b167f7, pID: http://data.europa.eu/89h/88d1c405-0448-4c9e-b565-3c30c9b167f7 (2021)

    2021

  49. [49]

    Zeyen, J

    L. Zeyen, J. Hampp, F. Neumann, M. Parzen, A. Alamian, L. Franken, T. Brown, J. Geis, P. Glaum, F. Finozzi, M. van der Plas, M. Millinger, T. Gilon, D. Lerede, A. Schledorn, L. Trippe, et al., Technology-data-electrobiofuel: e-biofuels dataset (2026).doi:10.5281/zenodo.18985275. URLhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18985275

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.18985275 2026

  50. [50]

    I. Hannula, Hydrogen enhancement potential of synthetic biofuels manufacture in the European context: A techno-economic assessment, Energy 104 (2016) 199–212.doi:10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.119. 21

    work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.119 2016

  51. [51]

    Boyland, A

    J. Boyland, A. Annisa, T. Kirketerp-Møller, J. Cremer, From Pilots to Practice: Methanol and Ammo- niaasShippingFuels, Tech.rep., GlobalMaritimeForumfortheGettingtoZeroCoalition, Copenhagen, Denmark, this report builds upon theMapping of zero-emission pilots and demonstration projectsseries first published in 2020. (August 2025). URLhttps://www.globalmari...

    2020

  52. [52]

    rep., European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, final Report (2015)

    European Commission, CO2StoP – Assessment of the CO2 Storage Potential in Europe, Tech. rep., European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, final Report (2015). URLhttps://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/91746

    work page doi:10.2777/91746 2015

  53. [53]

    Bornemann, J

    L. Bornemann, J. Lange, M. Kaltschmitt, Oxygen production via electrolysis: A model-based assess- ment of its impact on a climate-neutral German energy system, Energy Conversion and Management 344 (2025) 120213.doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2025.120213

    work page doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2025.120213 2025

  54. [54]

    Desogus, D

    E. Desogus, D. Grosso, E. Bompard, S. L. Russo, Modelling the geopolitical impact on risk assessment of energy supply system: The case of Italian crude oil supply, Energy 284 (2023) 128578.doi:10. 1016/j.energy.2023.128578

    work page arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Dejonghe, T

    M. Dejonghe, T. Van de Graaf, R. Belmans, From natural gas to hydrogen: Navigating import risks and dependencies in Northwest Europe, Energy Research & Social Science 106 (2023) 103301.doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2023.103301

    work page doi:10.1016/j.erss.2023.103301 2023

  56. [56]

    Zhang, Results analysis of e-biofuels study (2026).doi:10.5281/zenodo.18985101

    Y. Zhang, Results analysis of e-biofuels study (2026).doi:10.5281/zenodo.18985101. URLhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18985101 22 Supplementary Information Contents Supplementary Figures •Figure S1: Liquid fuel mix in the European energy system •Figure S2: CO 2 and solid biomass shadow prices •Figure S3: Power generation, hydrogen production, biomass consu...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.18985101 2026