Projecting future CO₂ and CDR demand for aviation and shipping
In this post, we compare the costs of the electrofuels e-jetfuel for aviation and e-ammonia for shipping with the cost of the combination of continued use of fossil fuel (BAU) with Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) to remove the carbon emitted in burning the fossil jet fuel.
The analysis indicates that, in most cases, electrofuels will be the more expensive option. For aviation, both electrofuels and the BAU+DACCS scenario rely on DAC (or biogenic sources such as biogas separation) as the source of CO₂, therefore the price of DAC does not matter for the comparison. For e-ammonia
The cost competitiveness of electrofuels hinges on two main factors: the price of fossil fuels and the cost of electricity. Electrofuels require large amounts of hydrogen, needing seven times more electricity than the BAU+DACCS scenario for aviation. It only reaches cost parity with BAU+DACCS when fossil fuel prices significantly increase or electricity prices are exceptionally low. High electricity prices and/or low fossil fuel prices strongly favor BAU+DACCS.
Calculator for global CO₂ and CDR needs for aviation
E-ammonia for shipping is favoured at an electricity cost below 0,03kWh, or CDR price above $270/t, or 75% higher fossil fuel prices (both at $0,05kWh).
If electricity prices are high, then CDR+BAU is favoured,
Note that e-ammonia has lower energy density per unit of fuel, so more fuel is needed. The extra cost of shipping more fuel, and retrofitting ships is not included.
Shipping fuel oil is about 35% cheaper than jet fuel per GJ, meaning that e-ammonia needs to be much cheaper than electrokerosene to compete.
Calculator for global CO₂ and CDR needs for shipping