1. Reverse Water-Gas Shift
CO2 + H2 → CO + H2O
Captured carbon dioxide reacts with hydrogen to form carbon monoxide and water.
www.fuelfromair.com
Petroleum products
from captured carbon.
This website demonstrates our process for converting CO₂ into high-value petroleum products, including diesel, gasoline, and kerosene.
After five years of research and development, Fuel From Air presents a circular-carbon pathway that transforms captured carbon into liquid fuels the world already understands.
Explore the process →01
The Chemistry
We use time-proven chemistry combined with advanced catalysis to convert captured CO₂ and renewable hydrogen into synthesis gas, then into hydrocarbons.
Learn more →2. Hydrocarbon Synthesis (Fischer–Tropsch)
(2n + 1)H2 + nCO → CnH2n+2 + nH2O
Synthesis gas is converted over a catalyst to produce long-chain hydrocarbons in the range of diesel, gasoline, and kerosene.
Process sequence
The unit will capture CO2 from the atmosphere, then release the CO2 back into the gas phase and compress it. The CO2 will be catalytically combined with electrolytically generated hydrogen to synthesise methanol. The methanol will then be catalytically dehydrated and oligermerised to synthetic petrol.
Atmospheric CO₂ to synthetic fuel flow diagram
This diagram illustrates the proposed route from CO₂ capture and electrostatic spraying through hydrogen electrolysis, CO₂ stripping, catalytic synthesis, and synthetic fuel output.
Simplified atmospheric CO₂ to fuel process pathway
This simplified flow diagram highlights the main process stages: air enters the CO₂ filter, renewable energy powers the system, hydrogen is produced by electrolysis, and the fuel reactor combines CO₂ and hydrogen to create synthetic fuel for transport applications.
Synthetic hydrocarbons chemistry cycle
This circular visual shows the relationship between solar energy, electrolysis, CO₂, hydrogen, hydrocarbon synthesis, combustion, and the wider recycled-carbon loop.
The FFA Process
The FFA process in one view: atmospheric air is drawn through a CO₂ filter (powered by renewable energy), while water is split in a hydrogen electrolyser. The captured CO₂ and hydrogen are combined in the fuel reactor to synthesise a carbon-neutral liquid fuel — up to and including Jet A1 — with clean filtered air returned to the atmosphere. Roughly 1.1 MWh of input energy yields about one tonne of fuel per day.
Global Petrol Demand & Pump Prices (2026)
Global petrol demand and the cost of filling up vary enormously by country. The US alone burns over 1.3 billion litres of petrol a day, while the price to fill an average car ranges from under $10 in Turkmenistan and Venezuela to over $90 in Turkey. Synthetic hydrocarbons made from air, water and renewable electricity can displace this fossil demand with a drop-in, carbon-neutral fuel — produced locally, priced against local electricity rather than imported crude.
Sources: IEA Global Energy Review 2026; Global Petrol Prices 2026.
The Process, End to End
The whole chain in a single schematic: air drawn through a fine alkaline mist that strips out carbon dioxide; the loaded sodium carbonate solution passed to an electrolytic stripper which releases the CO₂ and regenerates the capture medium; renewable electricity splitting water in parallel to make hydrogen, venting oxygen as it goes; and the two streams meeting over catalysts in a two-stage synthesis — either Fischer–Tropsch by way of carbon monoxide, or the Mobil route by way of methanol.
Schematic © R. Monkhouse, 2009. Every green node is a renewable electric power input.
Where the Energy Goes
Professor Marmont's stage-by-stage breakdown accounts for every kilowatt-hour in a litre of finished petrol. It is worth reading carefully, because it explains why electricity price decides everything about this business.
| Stage | kWh per litre | Share | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Air capture | 0.44 | 2% | fans and pumps — the cheap part |
| CO₂ release from Na₂CO₃ | 4.60 | 22% | regenerating the capture loop |
| Electrolysis | 14.60 | 68% | splitting water — close to the physical floor |
| Gas compression | 1.74 | 8% | — |
| Fuel synthesis | exothermic | — | gives heat back |
| TOTAL | 21.38 | 100% | 80.9 kWh per US gallon |
Petrol carries 9.7 kWh per litre, so the ratio of energy in to energy out is 2.2 : 1. At £40/MWh that is 85.5p of electricity in every litre. This is not a flaw in the design — it is the thermodynamics of unburning a fuel, and it is precisely why the 394-location siting database is the commercial asset rather than a curiosity.
Three Energy Bases — and Which This Plan Uses
Three figures for the energy in a litre of petrol exist across FFA's material, and an investor will find all three. They are set out here rather than reconciled quietly.
The design basis — 67% efficiency, 13.27 kWh/L. The website calculator's default, and the figure used throughout this plan and the financial model. It assumes a tuned commercial unit rather than a demonstrator.
The Marmont breakdown — 45% efficiency, 21.38 kWh/L. Built stage by stage from first principles. Its largest line, electrolysis at 14.6 kWh/L, sits close to the physical floor for splitting water and is not something tuning removes.
The pilot plant — roughly 43%, 20.75 kWh/L. Derived from the measured draw of 43.2 kWh per gallon of methanol, converted at the 55% methanol-to-gasoline yield.
The two measured figures agree within 3%. The design basis does not agree with either, and the gap is worth 49% on production cost: petrol at $0.73/L on the design basis against $1.09/L on Marmont's.
The position this plan takes: 67% is retained as the base case, because the pilot proved the process without being tuned for efficiency and the design target is a legitimate forward assumption. But the Marmont figure is the conservative case and should be treated as the downside in any investment discussion. Closing the gap between 45% and 67% is a specific, fundable engineering objective — and it is worth more to this business than any commercial lever available.
The energy ledger — stage by stage
Professor Tony Marmont's chemical breakdown itemises what each stage of the process costs in energy, per litre of finished petrol. Electrolysis dominates at 14.6 kWh/l — 68% of the total, and close to the physical floor for splitting water. Fuel synthesis is exothermic and returns heat rather than consuming it.
| Stage | kWh per litre | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Air capture | 0.44 | 2% |
| CO₂ release from Na₂CO₃ | 4.60 | 22% |
| Electrolysis | 14.60 | 68% |
| Gas compression | 1.74 | 8% |
| Fuel synthesis | exothermic | returns heat |
| TOTAL | 21.38 | 2.2 : 1 in/out |
Petrol's own energy content is 9.7 kWh/l, so 21.38 kWh/l in gives an energy ratio of 2.2 : 1. At £40/MWh that is 85.5 pence a litre in electricity alone. Source: Prof Tony Marmont, chemical energy breakdown.
Synthetic fuel from atmospheric CO₂ — the process schematic
Air enters the capture tower against a fine mist of sodium hydroxide; the resulting sodium carbonate passes to an electrolytic stripper which releases the CO₂ and regenerates the hydroxide. A hydrogen electrolyser supplies H₂ and vents O₂. The two streams meet at a two-stage synthesis — either H₂+CO₂ to CO to hydrocarbon by Fischer-Tropsch, or H₂+CO₂ to methanol to hydrocarbon by the Mobil process. Green markers show where renewable electric power enters. © R. Monkhouse 2009.
The process schematic
Air enters a tower and meets a fine alkaline mist; carbon dioxide is stripped from it and the loaded solution drops out as sodium carbonate. An electrolytic stripper releases the CO2 and regenerates the hydroxide, which returns to the top of the tower. In parallel an electrolyser splits water into hydrogen and oxygen, and the oxygen is vented. The CO2 and hydrogen meet at the catalyst beds — Fischer-Tropsch, or methanol and then the Mobil process to finished fuel.
Every green hexagon is a renewable power input. There are four, and together they are 43.2 kWh per gallon of methanol — which is why siting, not chemistry, decides whether a plant is a business. Source: R. Monkhouse, 2009.
Energy balance — the Marmont breakdown
Professor Tony Marmont has costed the energy requirement stage by stage, per litre of finished petrol. It is the most granular energy figure FFA holds, built up from the physics rather than assumed.
Air capture 0.44, CO2 release 4.6, electrolysis 14.6, gas compression 1.74 — a total of 21.38 kWh per litre, with fuel synthesis exothermic. Against petrol's 9.7 kWh/l that is a 2.2 : 1 energy-in to energy-out ratio, an implied efficiency of about 45%, and 85.5p a litre in energy at £40/MWh.
Two measured sources agree; the design basis does not. The Marmont breakdown gives 21.38 kWh/L. The pilot plant independently implies 20.75 — within 3%. Both point to roughly 45% efficiency. The 67% design basis implies 13.27 kWh/L and is used as the base case throughout, on the grounds that the pilot was never tuned and electrolyser performance has improved since 2015; the Marmont figure is carried as the conservative case. The distinction matters — electrolysis alone is 14.6 kWh/L, 68% of the total, and close to the physical floor for splitting water.
02
The Conversion Plant
A fully integrated, modular system designed for scale, efficiency, and real-world deployment.
View UK pilot plant →1. Capture
CO₂ captured from industrial sources or the atmosphere.
2. Electrolysis
Renewable electricity splits water to produce H₂.
3. Synthesis
CO₂ and H₂ converted to hydrocarbons over catalysts.
4. Distillation
Hydrocarbons refined into diesel, gasoline, kerosene, and more.
Diesel
Gasoline
Kerosene
Industrial feedstock
Plant gallery
UK Pilot Plant
A visual overview of the UK pilot plant, showing the modular installation, control area, process vessels, gas handling equipment, and the engineering hardware used in development and demonstration.
UK pilot plant block diagram
This full-width schematic gives a process overview of the UK pilot plant. It shows the sequence from the CO2 capture tower and CO2 release electrolyser through hydrogen electrolysis, gas compression and storage, and onward to methanol synthesis, methanol/water separation, and final petrol production. The diagram helps explain how the individual plant modules connect together as one integrated fuel-from-air system.
Main control room overview
A wide interior view of the UK pilot plant showing the blue control consoles, utility systems, and the integrated process layout inside the modular unit.
Process modules and pipework
Close-up of the pilot plant treatment section, featuring process vessels, clear chambers, service pipework, and green utility hoses.
Reaction vessel detail
Detail view of a large process vessel and associated piping, valves, and instrumentation within the pilot plant service bay.
Interior plant perspective
A broader perspective across the modular plant interior, showing the compact arrangement of process equipment and operator access areas.
Demonstration plant in operation
Foreground process chamber with the wider pilot plant visible beyond, illustrating the real-world operational environment of the UK system.
Gas handling manifold
Pressure vessels, stainless pipework, and instrumentation used for gas management, conditioning, and system control.
Control consoles and operator station
Blue angled control panels with gauges and manual controls used to monitor and operate the pilot plant safely.
Integrated process section
Another interior view showing transparent process vessels, support frames, and the integrated treatment and conversion hardware.
Fabricated reactor assembly
Custom-fabricated metal assembly representing the engineered process hardware developed for pilot-scale operation and testing.
Gas supply and utility skid
Outdoor support equipment, gas cylinders, and a blue utility module that supply services needed for pilot plant operation.
Pilot plant exterior site view
External view of the UK pilot plant installation, showing the modular containerised structure and associated tall process stack.
Container shell and observation window
Side elevation of the containerised pilot plant with access door, inspection window, and the rugged transportable enclosure.
Full-height process tower
A full external view of the UK pilot plant with its high vertical stack, illustrating the scale and modular deployment concept.
Pilot rig overview
Detailed view of the pilot plant interior, showing the control console, transparent process vessels, and integrated equipment used for capture and treatment operations.
External utility skid
Outdoor support equipment beside the containerized unit, including a blue service skid and vertical pressure vessel that support plant operation.
Operator console and process bay
Interior view down the operator side of the plant, with the blue control consoles, process hardware, and service connections arranged in a compact layout.
Longitudinal reactor bay
A longer perspective through the pilot plant showing the reactor bay, control panels, and supporting equipment installed within the modular container.
Raised process tower assembly
The full-height process tower shown during installation, illustrating the scale of the major vertical hardware associated with the pilot plant.
Gas manifold and storage vessels
Black and red pressure vessels, gauges, and line diagrams forming part of the gas handling and conditioning system.
Hydrogen control station
Blue Haskel pressure unit and hydrogen control panel used for gas management, regulation, and safe process operation.
Analytical control workstation
Instrumentation and touchscreen control interface used for plant supervision, monitoring, and analytical support.
Product handling rig
A dedicated equipment skid with feed tank, insulated process components, and product vessel used during pilot-scale testing and operation.
Design layout: gas storage area
Documented layout view of the gas storage and service manifold arrangement used in the UK pilot plant design package.
Design layout: analytical output
Screen capture from the plant analysis system showing process data and chromatographic output used for performance review.
Design layout: fabricated process assembly
Engineering layout view of a fabricated metallic process component developed for pilot-scale testing and fluid handling.
Design layout: gas supply skid
Documented view of the gas cylinder and utility skid area supporting pilot plant services and feed supply.
Design layout: site installation
Project layout image showing the modular plant on site together with the associated vertical stack and external pipework.
Design layout: container side elevation
Side elevation of the containerized pilot unit, showing the access door, window section, and transportable outer shell.
Operational process rig view
Another documented interior view highlighting the pilot process rig, utility piping, and equipment arrangement under operating conditions.
Power unit and control cabinet
Power electronics and control cabinet for the UK pilot plant, showing the electrical control hardware used to manage plant operation, monitoring and process power distribution.
03
The Business Case
A compelling solution at the intersection of climate responsibility and commercial value.
See the numbers →| Section | Source / Process | Claim or Calculation | Quantity | Unit | Notes / Formula Basis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Physics of Transportation | Zero-ethanol gasoline | 1 gallon produces | 17.4 | lbs CO2 | Per gallon of fuel |
| The Physics of Transportation | Diesel | 1 gallon produces | 22.0 | lbs CO2 | Per gallon of fuel |
| The Physics of Transportation | Passenger car | Each passenger car produces | 8,188.0 | lbs CO2 / year | Base 12,000 miles/year and 25.5 mpg |
| The Physics of Transportation | USA ground transportation | CO2 produced during 2015 | 1,700.0 | million tons CO2 | USA ground transportation |
| The Physics of Transportation | Worldwide flights | CO2 produced during 2015 | 770.0 | million tons CO2 | Flights around the world |
| FFA Air to Fuel Synthesis | FFA gasoline production | Producing 1 gallon consumes | 28.0 | lbs CO2 | CO2 consumed during synthesis |
| FFA Air to Fuel Synthesis | FFA gasoline production | Producing 1 gallon vents | 20.1 | lbs O2 | Oxygen vented back to atmosphere |
| FFA Air to Fuel Synthesis | Car using FFA fuel | Each car will remove | 13,176.0 | lbs CO2 / year | Base 470.6 gallons/year × 28 lbs CO2/gallon |
| FFA Air to Fuel Synthesis | USA car fleet using FFA fuel | Fleet will remove | 2,423.0 | million tons CO2 / year | USA car fleet |
| FFA Air to Fuel Synthesis | World aircraft fleet using FFA fuel | Fleet will remove | 1,097.0 | million tons CO2 / year | World aircraft fleet |
| Metric | Value | Unit | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gasoline CO2 production | 17.4 | lbs CO2 / gallon | Zero-ethanol gasoline |
| FFA CO2 consumption | 28.0 | lbs CO2 / gallon | Per gallon of FFA gasoline produced |
| Net CO2 benefit vs gasoline production | 45.4 | lbs CO2 / gallon | FFA consumption plus avoided gasoline emissions |
| Annual gasoline use per passenger car | 470.6 | gallons/year | 12,000 miles/year ÷ 25.5 mpg |
| Annual CO2 removal per FFA car | 13,176 | lbs CO2/year | Annual gallons × 28 lbs CO2/gallon |
CO₂ extraction and the transportation business case
This slide explains the scale of the opportunity behind air-to-fuel synthesis. It compares the CO₂ released by conventional gasoline, diesel, passenger cars and aviation with the proposed AFC fuel pathway, where producing fuel consumes captured CO₂ and returns oxygen to the atmosphere. The meaning for Section 03 is that the business case is not only fuel production: it is also carbon removal, transport-sector decarbonisation, and a route to cleaner liquid fuels for cars, aircraft and other hard-to-electrify applications.
Abundant, Low-Cost Feedstock
CO₂ is abundant and increasingly expensive to emit — turning an emission liability into a valuable raw material.
Leverages Existing Infrastructure
Drop-in hydrocarbons can work with existing refineries, pipelines, storage, and engines.
Premium Markets
Produces high-value fuels for transportation, aviation, marine, and industrial applications.
04
Applications
Drop-in fuels for the world's most critical sectors and systems.
Explore applications →
BBC Review of the Factory in UK
BBC review of the factory presented in the gasoline box below. International interest in the results sparked media and investor interest.
BBC Filming of the First Results
Renewable gasoline for cars and sports vehicles tuned to get maximum engine performance.
Video clip added to the Gasoline application box, showing the AFS / Fuel From Air material as supporting media for liquid fuel applications.
Kerosene / Jet Fuel
From the very beginning, one of our key motivations was to create fuel from air for helicopter operations — an ambitious and highly demanding challenge. Tony set out to meet that challenge head-on, and through his determination, belief, and perseverance, we have seen the first signs of real success.
The concept has now been proven, and the process has been demonstrated. Our task is to take this achievement forward and show the world an alternative pathway to a more sustainable future — producing aviation fuel, gasoline for cars, diesel for trucks, trains and ships, and fuel for heating applications.
Industrial Uses
Synthetic man-made fuels can be used in industry not only as energy sources but also as feedstocks for making chemicals, lubricants, solvents, and other valuable products. Through processes like Fischer–Tropsch synthesis or methanol production, synthetic fuels can be converted into hydrocarbons and chemical building blocks used in manufacturing plastics, detergents, adhesives, coatings, and synthetic rubber.
They are also important in producing high-quality lubricants, specialty waxes, solvents, and industrial fluids because synthetic fuel processes can create very pure and consistent chemical compounds. This makes them useful where performance, cleanliness, and reliability are required, such as in machinery, aviation, automotive applications, pharmaceuticals, paints, and electronics manufacturing. Overall, synthetic man-made fuels support industry by providing flexible raw materials that can reduce dependence on crude oil and help create cleaner, more controlled industrial products.
P = ½ ρ A v³ E = ½ m v² Cp ≤ 0.593 P = ½ ρ A v³ Cp KE = ½ m v² λ = ωR / v f(v) = (k/c)(v/c)^{k-1} e^{-(v/c)^k} AEP = Σ P(vᵢ)·h(vᵢ) η = E_out / E_in CO₂ + H₂ → CO + H₂O (2n+1)H₂ + nCO → CₙH₂ₙ₊₂ + nH₂O LHV ÷ η = kWh/L P = ½ ρ A v³ E = ½ m v² Cp ≤ 0.593 P = ½ ρ A v³ Cp KE = ½ m v² λ = ωR / v f(v) = (k/c)(v/c)^{k-1} e^{-(v/c)^k} AEP = Σ P(vᵢ)·h(vᵢ) η = E_out / E_in CO₂ + H₂ → CO + H₂O (2n+1)H₂ + nCO → CₙH₂ₙ₊₂ + nH₂O LHV ÷ η = kWh/L P = ½ ρ A v³ E = ½ m v² Cp ≤ 0.593 P = ½ ρ A v³ Cp KE = ½ m v² λ = ωR / v f(v) = (k/c)(v/c)^{k-1} e^{-(v/c)^k} AEP = Σ P(vᵢ)·h(vᵢ) η = E_out / E_in CO₂ + H₂ → CO + H₂O (2n+1)H₂ + nCO → CₙH₂ₙ₊₂ + nH₂O LHV ÷ η = kWh/L P = ½ ρ A v³ E = ½ m v² Cp ≤ 0.593 P = ½ ρ A v³ Cp KE = ½ m v² λ = ωR / v f(v) = (k/c)(v/c)^{k-1} e^{-(v/c)^k} AEP = Σ P(vᵢ)·h(vᵢ) η = E_out / E_in CO₂ + H₂ → CO + H₂O (2n+1)H₂ + nCO → CₙH₂ₙ₊₂ + nH₂O LHV ÷ η = kWh/L P = ½ ρ A v³ E = ½ m v² Cp ≤ 0.593 P = ½ ρ A v³ Cp KE = ½ m v² λ = ωR / v f(v) = (k/c)(v/c)^{k-1} e^{-(v/c)^k} AEP = Σ P(vᵢ)·h(vᵢ) η = E_out / E_in CO₂ + H₂ → CO + H₂O (2n+1)H₂ + nCO → CₙH₂ₙ₊₂ + nH₂O LHV ÷ η = kWh/L P = ½ ρ A v³ E = ½ m v² Cp ≤ 0.593 P = ½ ρ A v³ Cp KE = ½ m v² λ = ωR / v f(v) = (k/c)(v/c)^{k-1} e^{-(v/c)^k} AEP = Σ P(vᵢ)·h(vᵢ) η = E_out / E_in CO₂ + H₂ → CO + H₂O (2n+1)H₂ + nCO → CₙH₂ₙ₊₂ + nH₂O LHV ÷ η = kWh/L P = ½ ρ A v³ E = ½ m v² Cp ≤ 0.593 P = ½ ρ A v³ Cp KE = ½ m v² λ = ωR / v f(v) = (k/c)(v/c)^{k-1} e^{-(v/c)^k} AEP = Σ P(vᵢ)·h(vᵢ) η = E_out / E_in CO₂ + H₂ → CO + H₂O (2n+1)H₂ + nCO → CₙH₂ₙ₊₂ + nH₂O LHV ÷ η = kWh/L P = ½ ρ A v³ E = ½ m v² Cp ≤ 0.593 P = ½ ρ A v³ Cp KE = ½ m v² λ = ωR / v f(v) = (k/c)(v/c)^{k-1} e^{-(v/c)^k} AEP = Σ P(vᵢ)·h(vᵢ) η = E_out / E_in CO₂ + H₂ → CO + H₂O (2n+1)H₂ + nCO → CₙH₂ₙ₊₂ + nH₂O LHV ÷ η = kWh/L P = ½ ρ A v³ E = ½ m v² Cp ≤ 0.593 P = ½ ρ A v³ Cp KE = ½ m v² λ = ωR / v f(v) = (k/c)(v/c)^{k-1} e^{-(v/c)^k} AEP = Σ P(vᵢ)·h(vᵢ) η = E_out / E_in CO₂ + H₂ → CO + H₂O (2n+1)H₂ + nCO → CₙH₂ₙ₊₂ + nH₂O LHV ÷ η = kWh/L P = ½ ρ A v³ E = ½ m v² Cp ≤ 0.593 P = ½ ρ A v³ Cp KE = ½ m v² λ = ωR / v f(v) = (k/c)(v/c)^{k-1} e^{-(v/c)^k} AEP = Σ P(vᵢ)·h(vᵢ) η = E_out / E_in CO₂ + H₂ → CO + H₂O (2n+1)H₂ + nCO → CₙH₂ₙ₊₂ + nH₂O LHV ÷ η = kWh/L P = ½ ρ A v³ E = ½ m v² Cp ≤ 0.593 P = ½ ρ A v³ Cp KE = ½ m v² λ = ωR / v f(v) = (k/c)(v/c)^{k-1} e^{-(v/c)^k} AEP = Σ P(vᵢ)·h(vᵢ) η = E_out / E_in CO₂ + H₂ → CO + H₂O (2n+1)H₂ + nCO → CₙH₂ₙ₊₂ + nH₂O LHV ÷ η = kWh/L P = ½ ρ A v³ E = ½ m v² Cp ≤ 0.593 P = ½ ρ A v³ Cp KE = ½ m v² λ = ωR / v f(v) = (k/c)(v/c)^{k-1} e^{-(v/c)^k} AEP = Σ P(vᵢ)·h(vᵢ) η = E_out / E_in CO₂ + H₂ → CO + H₂O (2n+1)H₂ + nCO → CₙH₂ₙ₊₂ + nH₂O LHV ÷ η = kWh/L P = ½ ρ A v³ E = ½ m v² Cp ≤ 0.593 P = ½ ρ A v³ Cp KE = ½ m v² λ = ωR / v f(v) = (k/c)(v/c)^{k-1} e^{-(v/c)^k} AEP = Σ P(vᵢ)·h(vᵢ) η = E_out / E_in CO₂ + H₂ → CO + H₂O (2n+1)H₂ + nCO → CₙH₂ₙ₊₂ + nH₂O LHV ÷ η = kWh/L P = ½ ρ A v³ E = ½ m v² Cp ≤ 0.593 P = ½ ρ A v³ Cp KE = ½ m v² λ = ωR / v f(v) = (k/c)(v/c)^{k-1} e^{-(v/c)^k} AEP = Σ P(vᵢ)·h(vᵢ) η = E_out / E_in CO₂ + H₂ → CO + H₂O (2n+1)H₂ + nCO → CₙH₂ₙ₊₂ + nH₂O LHV ÷ η = kWh/L
Fuel Production
Fuel Production Estimate
Fuel From Air converts renewable electricity into synthetic liquid fuel — diesel, gasoline or kerosene — drawn from air and water through electrolysis and Fischer–Tropsch synthesis. These calculators estimate the electricity cost per litre/gallon of fuel, and how much fuel can be produced per year from a given renewable energy supply, including the atmospheric CO₂ drawn in and the O₂ released.
Where It Works
Building The Case For Fuel From Air
Liquid fuel synthesised from captured CO₂ and renewable hydrogen is a drop-in replacement for diesel, petrol and kerosene — storable, transportable, and usable in the engines and infrastructure the world already runs on. It is most powerful where clean electricity is abundant but a grid connection is not, turning surplus renewable energy into fuel that can be stored indefinitely and moved anywhere.
Farms & Agriculture
Turn on-site wind and solar into diesel for tractors, harvesters and irrigation pumps. Farms become fuel-independent, producing their own carbon-neutral diesel from the air above their own land instead of trucking it in.
Islands & Remote Communities
Islands pay a heavy premium to import fuel by ship. Local Fuel From Air plants powered by wind and solar replace that supply chain entirely — energy security from local air, water and renewable power, with no tanker dependence.
Transport & Aviation
Cars, trucks, ships and aircraft are hard to electrify. Synthetic diesel, petrol and Jet A burn in existing engines with no modification, giving heavy transport and aviation a genuine path to carbon-neutral operation today.
Regenerative & Self-Powered Machines
Pair the synthesiser with on-site renewables to create machines that make their own fuel — closed-loop systems where captured carbon becomes fuel, the fuel does work, and the released CO₂ is captured again.
Energy Storage & Grid Balancing
Surplus renewable power that would otherwise be curtailed is converted into liquid fuel — a high-density, long-duration store that holds energy for months, not hours, and dispatches it on demand.
Industrial Feedstock & Heat
Beyond fuel, the synthetic hydrocarbons serve as clean feedstock for chemicals, lubricants and solvents, and as process heat for industry — displacing fossil crude across the wider economy.
← Back to Fuel Production
← Back to Fuel Production
Inputs
| Electricity Price | |
| Currency | |
| Volume Unit | |
| Process Efficiency 67% |
Calculated Results
Electricity Cost per Litre
Fuel Volume Produced per kWh
Basis & Assumptions
Fuel energy content uses lower heating value (LHV): diesel 9.94, gasoline/petrol 8.89, kerosene/Jet A 9.48 kWh/L. Electricity required per unit = LHV ÷ process efficiency. US gallon = 3.78541 L. Figures show the electricity component only — capital, CO₂ capture and operating costs are excluded. Source equations adapted from www.fuelfromair.com.
Electricity from wind, solar, or your local power grid can be converted into synthetic liquid fuels — diesel, gasoline, or kerosene — by processing air and water through electrolysis and Fischer–Tropsch synthesis. These calculators estimate the electricity cost per litre/gallon of fuel and the annual fuel output when using local grid electricity as the conversion energy source, including the atmospheric CO₂ captured and the O₂ released. Ported from steveclamp.com.
← Back to Fuel ProductionInputs
| Location | |
| Site Wind Speed | |
| Turbine Purchase Price | |
| Currency | |
| Volume Unit | |
| Consumer Price (kWh) value of wind power/yr | $ |
| Wind Contractor Price (kWh) power-company contract income | $ |
| Capital Payback (yrs) | |
| Process Efficiency 67% |
Turbine Energy Capture
Annual Fuel Produced per Turbine
CWT Model 300 Power Curve
Annual Fuel Volume per Turbine
Wind Rose — Directional Frequency
Capital + Maintenance Cost per L — 10 Year Profile
Analysis
Basis & Assumptions
Power output follows a 4th-order fit to the CWT Model 300 power curve (cut-in 4 m/s, rated ≈290 kW, cut-out 24 m/s). Annual energy integrates the curve against a Rayleigh wind distribution over 8,760 h/yr. Fuel uses the same LHV figures and efficiency as the estimate tab. CO₂ absorbed and O₂ released follow synthesis stoichiometry (≈2.3–2.6 kg CO₂ in, ≈2.6–2.8 kg O₂ out per litre); carbon is re-emitted on combustion, so the cycle is carbon-neutral. Cost = capital recovered over the payback years + 5% annual maintenance. Indicative engineering estimate only. Source equations adapted from www.fuelfromair.com.
Electricity from wind, solar, or your local power grid can be converted into synthetic liquid fuels — diesel, gasoline, or kerosene — by processing air and water through electrolysis and Fischer–Tropsch synthesis. These calculators estimate the electricity cost per litre/gallon of fuel and the annual fuel output when using local grid electricity as the conversion energy source, including the atmospheric CO₂ captured and the O₂ released. Ported from steveclamp.com.
← Back to Fuel ProductionInputs
| Location | |
| Consumer Price | $ per kWh |
| Contractor Price | $ per kWh |
| Currency | |
| Volume Unit | |
| Synthesis Efficiency | 68% |
Location Energy
Annual Fuel Produced
Electricity Cost per Unit
Annual Fuel Volume
Analysis
Basis & Assumptions
Uses each location’s modelled annual energy availability, costed at the consumer electricity price per kWh shown above (pre-filled from local tariffs, editable). Fuel volumes assume the selected synthesis efficiency converting electricity to liquid fuel via electrolysis and Fischer–Tropsch. Figures are indicative only. Source equations adapted from www.fuelfromair.com.
← Back to Fuel Production
Consumer / Contractor Price Ratio — Top 10 & Bottom 10
Annual Fuel Production — Top 10 & Bottom 10
Fuel Production by Country
Top 10 & Bottom 10 — Bar
Top 10 & Bottom 10 — Profile
Fuel Demand Calculator. Select a location, a product and a demand case to size the plant required and see the production economics. All results are shown in both litres and US gallons. The electricity price basis is user-selectable: the database's retail proxies, a negotiated power-purchase agreement (PPA), or your own figure. Every equation used is shown at the foot of this page.
Inputs
| Location | |
| Product | |
| Demand case | |
| Custom volume | |
| Electricity price basis | |
| Tariff ($/kWh) | |
| Process efficiency | 67% |
| Display units |
Demand & Plant Required
Production Economics
Carbon Balance
All Three Products at This Location
Price Basis Comparison — Same Location, Same Product
Equations Used
Location Summary. Pick any of the 394 sites and see the whole analysis for it on one page — production cost, margin and verdict for all three fuels, the carbon balance, and the plant required. Every figure in both litres and US gallons.
Select a site
| Country | |
| Location | |
| Electricity basis | |
| Tariff ($/kWh) | |
| Efficiency | 67% |
| Units | |
| Export |
Opens a print view of this location, formatted for A4.
|
Site profile
Production cost by fuel
Margin against the local market
Full analysis — all three fuels
Tariff sensitivity at this site
Carbon balance & plant required
Equations
06
Market Analysis
What each location spends on fuel today, what FFA would cost instead, and the scale of plant required to serve a meaningful share of national demand.
Select an aspect to review:
Analysis
Charts by topic
Market Analysis at a glance
The five charts that carry the argument. Every figure is given in both litres and US gallons. Full detail on the tabs above.
Incumbent cost stack versus FFA production cost
What a location spends now, and what FFA would cost instead. The amber block is distribution and marketing \u2014 the layer FFA removes by producing on site.
National fuel spend and the distribution component
Total national spend on road and aviation fuel, and the share of it that is distribution rather than product.
Logistics cost avoided by siting at the demand point
FFA's units are shipping containers. Siting them where the fuel is used does not reduce the haul \u2014 it designs it out.
Capex and units to supply ten percent of national demand
The smallest achievable programmes. Iceland's aviation sector is the only ten-percent target under $100M in the database.
Real PPA prices versus the database retail proxy
The database carries retail tariffs. A plant operator signs a power-purchase agreement \u2014 roughly four times cheaper.
The honest basis for comparison
A pump price contains crude, refining, distribution, tax and retail margin. FFA's figure is a factory-gate production cost. Presenting the difference as a national saving would be a false comparison, and this analysis does not make that claim.
Two comparisons are defensible. First, whether FFA can produce below the price at which fuel currently sells — that determines whether there is a business. Second, the distribution and marketing layer, which the California Energy Commission puts at 24% of the pump price. FFA removes that layer structurally, because the fuel is made where it is used rather than shipped to it.
What the analysis supports, and what it does not
Iceland's aviation sector is the clearest entry point in the dataset: around fourteen base units — or one plant scaled to the same output — for $55–65M of capital and 26 MW of power, in a country whose electricity is cheap, whose fuel is not subsidised, and where all three products are already viable. It is the only ten-percent target anywhere in the database costing under $100M.
The counterweight is scale. Even FFA's largest standard unit supplies under a hundredth of a percent of a mid-sized country's road fuel. India at ten percent would need nearly thirty thousand base units and $135bn. FFA cannot address large markets at a ten-percent share, and the plan does not claim it can. The strategy is small markets, or well-chosen niches inside large ones.
A note on the electricity price
The 394-location database carries retail tariffs — the business column is labelled a proxy in FFA's own workbook. A plant operator signs a power-purchase agreement instead. Real 2026 corporate PPAs run between $0.025 and $0.079 per kWh, and FFA's own workbook already records the Cambodia National Solar Park at $0.03877. The figures throughout this section use $0.045, a representative PPA. On the database's retail proxies the same analysis would understate FFA's position by roughly a factor of four.
Current spend versus the FFA proposal
| Country | Pump $/L | Pump $/gal | Distribution $/L | Distribution $/gal | FFA $/L | FFA $/gal | FFA margin | National spend | Distribution spend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| India | $1.35 | $5.11 | $0.32 | $1.23 | $0.73 | $2.76 | 46% | $346.5bn | $83.2bn |
| South Korea | $1.35 | $5.11 | $0.32 | $1.23 | $0.73 | $2.76 | 46% | $155.6bn | $37.3bn |
| Russia | $0.75 | $2.84 | $0.18 | $0.68 | $0.73 | $2.76 | 3% | $130.4bn | $31.3bn |
| Spain | $2.00 | $7.57 | $0.48 | $1.82 | $0.73 | $2.76 | 64% | $121.3bn | $29.1bn |
| Netherlands | $2.93 | $11.09 | $0.70 | $2.66 | $0.73 | $2.76 | 75% | $109.9bn | $26.4bn |
| Thailand | $1.20 | $4.54 | $0.29 | $1.09 | $0.73 | $2.76 | 39% | $75.5bn | $18.1bn |
| Indonesia | $0.85 | $3.22 | $0.20 | $0.77 | $0.73 | $2.76 | 14% | $63.4bn | $15.2bn |
| Sweden | $2.15 | $8.14 | $0.52 | $1.95 | $0.73 | $2.76 | 66% | $26.2bn | $6.3bn |
| Norway | $2.20 | $8.33 | $0.53 | $2.00 | $0.73 | $2.76 | 67% | $23.6bn | $5.7bn |
| Vietnam | $0.85 | $3.22 | $0.20 | $0.77 | $0.73 | $2.76 | 14% | $21.6bn | $5.2bn |
| Portugal | $2.15 | $8.14 | $0.52 | $1.95 | $0.73 | $2.76 | 66% | $21.5bn | $5.2bn |
| Nigeria | $0.93 | $3.52 | $0.22 | $0.84 | $0.73 | $2.76 | 22% | $21.0bn | $5.0bn |
FFA cost at a $0.045/kWh power-purchase agreement, gasoline, 67% process efficiency. Distribution share 24% (California Energy Commission). Road and aviation fuel only.
Location demand and the scale required
| Country | Road demand (gal/yr) | Road (L/yr) | Aviation (gal/yr) | Aviation (L/yr) | 10% road: units | 10% road: capex | 10% aviation: units | 10% aviation: capex |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iceland | 225,265,152 | 852,720,959 | 28,962,662 | 109,635,552 | 112 | $505M | 14 | $65M |
| Laos | 252,360,927 | 955,289,577 | 32,446,405 | 122,822,946 | 126 | $566M | 16 | $73M |
| Cambodia | 789,082,623 | 2,987,001,252 | 101,453,480 | 384,043,018 | 393 | $1769M | 51 | $227M |
| Sri Lanka | 986,844,222 | 3,735,609,986 | 126,879,971 | 480,292,713 | 492 | $2212M | 63 | $284M |
| Myanmar | 1,344,755,265 | 5,090,450,028 | 172,897,106 | 654,486,432 | 670 | $3014M | 86 | $388M |
| Finland | 1,862,032,389 | 7,048,556,026 | 239,404,164 | 906,242,918 | 928 | $4174M | 119 | $537M |
| Portugal | 2,344,895,196 | 8,876,389,724 | 301,486,525 | 1,141,250,107 | 1168 | $5256M | 150 | $676M |
| Norway | 2,514,895,698 | 9,519,911,324 | 323,343,733 | 1,223,988,599 | 1253 | $5637M | 161 | $725M |
| Sweden | 2,848,876,611 | 10,784,166,012 | 366,284,136 | 1,386,535,630 | 1419 | $6386M | 182 | $821M |
| Bangladesh | 3,089,014,929 | 11,693,188,002 | 397,159,062 | 1,503,409,886 | 1539 | $6924M | 198 | $890M |
National consumption from Worldometer 2024 (BP/EIA/Oil & Gas Journal), split by US refinery yields — gasoline 45%, diesel 25%, jet 9%. Unit counts use FFA's base 3 t/day plant; see Scaling for the effect of building larger.
Scaling the plant to the demand
Labour — two operators at the local rate
Two operators per location regardless of output, at the local average wage plus 25% employer on-cost. Sources: OECD Taxing Wages 2026 (Europe), ILO and national statistics elsewhere. A 64× spread — $4,500/yr in DR Congo to $290,215 in Switzerland. This replaces the local rate: 2 operators x local wage x 1.25 placeholder in FFA's V42.1 model, which was 2.4× too high for Switzerland and 50× too high for Myanmar.
Capital cost — the scaling curve
FFA's three quoted plant sizes, fitted. Capex = 37,891 × (gal/day)0.688, R² = 0.9994 — an exponent of 0.688 is the classic chemical-plant six-tenths rule, so the costings independently reproduce the law that governs real process plants. 2015 pricing, stable to 2026: the technology gain has come through efficiency (39% → 67%), not cost.
The pilot proved the process; the design is scalable. This analysis assumes output rises linearly with plant size, while production cost falls 8% per doubling, capped at 15%. The cap is reached at four times the base unit and holds thereafter — which agrees with FFA's own note that there are minimal economies of scale beyond 3 t/day, once the electrolyser is at its limit.
For reference, FFA's measured data shows a far steeper curve at small sizes: $4.50/gal at 33 gal/day, $2.40 at 333, $1.90 at 1,000 — reductions of 47% then 21%. The 8% rule applies beyond the 3 t/day base, where the step changes are smaller.
| Size | Methanol gal/day | Finished fuel gal/yr | Finished fuel L/yr | Cost cut | $/gal methanol | $/L methanol | Capex |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1x | 1,000 | 200,750 | 759,921 | -0% | $1.900 | $0.50 | $4,500,000 |
| 2x | 2,000 | 401,500 | 1,519,842 | -8% | $1.748 | $0.46 | $8,280,000 |
| 4x | 4,000 | 803,000 | 3,039,684 | -15% | $1.615 | $0.43 | $15,300,000 |
| 8x | 8,000 | 1,606,000 | 6,079,368 | -15% | $1.615 | $0.43 | $30,600,000 |
| 16x | 16,000 | 3,212,000 | 12,158,737 | -15% | $1.615 | $0.43 | $61,200,000 |
| 32x | 32,000 | 6,424,000 | 24,317,474 | -15% | $1.615 | $0.43 | $122,400,000 |
| 64x | 64,000 | 12,848,000 | 48,634,948 | -15% | $1.615 | $0.43 | $244,800,000 |
| 128x | 128,000 | 25,696,000 | 97,269,895 | -15% | $1.615 | $0.43 | $489,600,000 |
10% aviation programmes — one scaled plant versus many base units
| Country | 10% aviation (gal/yr) | Base units | Capex, base units | Scaled plant size | Capex, scaled | Capex avoided |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iceland | 2,896,266 | 14 | $64.9M | 14x | $55.2M | $9.7M |
| Laos | 3,244,640 | 16 | $72.7M | 16x | $61.8M | $10.9M |
| Cambodia | 10,145,348 | 51 | $227.4M | 51x | $193.3M | $34.1M |
| Sri Lanka | 12,687,997 | 63 | $284.4M | 63x | $241.8M | $42.7M |
| Myanmar | 17,289,711 | 86 | $387.6M | 86x | $329.4M | $58.1M |
| Finland | 23,940,416 | 119 | $536.6M | 119x | $456.1M | $80.5M |
| Portugal | 30,148,653 | 150 | $675.8M | 150x | $574.4M | $101.4M |
| Norway | 32,334,373 | 161 | $724.8M | 161x | $616.1M | $108.7M |
| Sweden | 36,628,414 | 182 | $821.1M | 182x | $697.9M | $123.2M |
| Bangladesh | 39,715,906 | 198 | $890.3M | 198x | $756.7M | $133.5M |
Scaling rule directed by FFA: linear output, −8% cost per doubling, capped at −15%. Base is FFA's real 3 t/day unit.
Why multiple plants rather than one
FFA's base units are 8′×40′ shipping containers — the company's own specification. At these volumes there is no single-plant option in the conventional sense: supplying a tenth of a country's aviation fuel takes between fourteen and a hundred and nineteen base units. Because each goes to the demand point, the road haul and the remote-delivery premium are not reduced but designed out.
The tension worth naming: the scaling rule rewards building one large plant, while the logistics argument rewards dispersing many small ones. Both are true, and they pull in opposite directions. The resolution depends on how concentrated the demand is: a single airport justifies one scaled plant on site; a national road network does not.
| Country | 10% aviation (gal/yr) | 10% aviation (L/yr) | Base units | Capex | Haul cost if centralised | Remote premium avoided |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iceland | 2,896,266 | 10,963,555 | 14 | $64.9M | $242,417 | $434,440 |
| Laos | 3,244,640 | 12,282,295 | 16 | $72.7M | $271,576 | $486,696 |
| Cambodia | 10,145,348 | 38,404,302 | 51 | $227.4M | $849,166 | $1,521,802 |
| Sri Lanka | 12,687,997 | 48,029,271 | 63 | $284.4M | $1,061,985 | $1,903,200 |
| Myanmar | 17,289,711 | 65,448,643 | 86 | $387.6M | $1,447,149 | $2,593,457 |
| Finland | 23,940,416 | 90,624,292 | 119 | $536.6M | $2,003,813 | $3,591,062 |
| Portugal | 30,148,653 | 114,125,011 | 150 | $675.8M | $2,523,442 | $4,522,298 |
| Norway | 32,334,373 | 122,398,860 | 161 | $724.8M | $2,706,387 | $4,850,156 |
Caveat: the logistics avoided ($0.2–3.6M a year) is small against the capital required ($55–537M). Distribution economics support the siting decision; they do not by themselves justify the investment.
Top 10 Locations — Detailed Review
Ranked by payback on a base 3 t/day unit at the site's best product. Ranking by margin alone would be misleading: Cambodia has the highest margin (56%) but pays back in 8.9 years, while Iceland's lower 49% margin pays back in 4.3, because Iceland clears on a high pump price rather than a low tariff.
Aviation fuel is assumed to be produced at the main or regional airport in each country. All figures in both litres and US gallons.
1. Iceland2. Finland3. Norway4. Cambodia5. Myanmar6. Sri Lanka7. Spain8. Sweden9. Netherlands10. Portugal
1
Iceland
Capital city - Reykjavik · wind 6.0 m/s · retail proxy $0.086/kWhAviation at Keflavík International (KEF) is viable on price today.
Business plan assumptions
| Assumption | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Electricity tariff basis | Negotiated PPA at $0.045/kWh | Real 2026 corporate PPAs run $0.025–0.079/kWh. FFA's own workbook records the Cambodia solar park at $0.03877. |
| Site retail proxy (for comparison) | $0.086/kWh | The database's business column is a retail proxy, not a contract. |
| Process efficiency | 67% | FFA design basis. The pilot proved the process; it was not tuned for efficiency. |
| Non-energy cost | $0.132/L ($0.50/gal) | Reconciles FFA's $1.90/gal all-in methanol figure. PLACEHOLDER. |
| Methanol-to-fuel yield | 55% | PLACEHOLDER pending FFA confirmation. |
| Base plant | 3 t/day — 1,000 gal/day, $4.5M, 1,800 kW | FFA's Methanol Synthesis Unit Scaling Cost. |
| Scaling rule | Linear output; cost −8% per doubling, capped at −15% | FFA-directed. Cap reached at 4×, consistent with 'minimal economies of scale beyond 3 t/day'. |
| National fuel split | Gasoline 45%, diesel 25%, jet 9% | US refinery yields (EIA), applied to national oil consumption. |
| National oil consumption | 20,992 bbl/day | Worldometer 2024 (BP / EIA / Oil & Gas Journal). |
| Main airport | Keflavík International (KEF) | Iceland's sole international hub, 50 km from Reykjavík; Air BP and SUAT supply Jet A-1 there today. |
| Hub share of national jet fuel | 95% | Assumption — concentration of uplift at the principal hub. FFA to refine. |
Open-market economics — best product
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Best product | Diesel | |
| Production cost | $1.41/L | $5.33/gal |
| Local market price | $2.77/L | $10.50/gal |
| Margin | 49% | |
| EBITDA per base unit | $1,037,382/yr | |
| Payback on a base unit | 4.3 years | |
| Products clearing the local price | Diesel, Gasoline, Kerosene | of three |
Aviation programme — sited at Keflavík International (KEF)
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Airport | Keflavík International (KEF) | Iceland's sole international hub, 50 km from Reykjavík; Air BP and SUAT supply Jet A-1 there today. |
| National jet fuel | 28,962,662 gal/yr | 109,635,552 L/yr |
| Uplift at this hub | 27,514,529 gal/yr | at 95% of national |
| Programme target — 10% of hub | 2,751,453 gal/yr | 10,415,377 L/yr |
| Plant size | 14× the base unit | scaled, −15% cost |
| Capital required | $52.4M | |
| Continuous power | 24,671 kW | 0.9% of the national grid |
| Kerosene production cost | $1.35/L | $5.11/gal |
| Local jet fuel price | $2.00/L | $7.56/gal |
| Aviation margin | +32% | positive |
| Programme revenue | $20,804,716/yr | |
| Programme EBITDA | $6,756,082/yr | |
| Programme payback | 7.8 years | |
| CO₂ removed | 26,299 tonnes/yr | at $200/t = $5,259,766 |
| O₂ returned | 28,288 tonnes/yr |
Road programme — for comparison
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| National road fuel | 225,265,152 gal/yr | 852,720,959 L/yr |
| Programme target — 10% of road | 22,526,515 gal/yr | |
| Plant size | 112× the base unit | |
| Capital required | $429M |
Pros of FFA operating in Iceland
- Strong headline margin: 49% on diesel at the best site.
- Fast payback on a base unit: 4.3 years.
- All three products clear the local market price, so the plant is not tied to one offtake.
- Aviation works on price: kerosene at $1.35/L against a $2.00/L market, a 32% margin.
- The airport programme needs 25 MW — 0.9% of the national grid, which is readily absorbed.
- The airport programme is fundable at $52.4 of capital.M
Cons and open questions
2
Finland
Aland Islands · wind 8.0 m/s · retail proxy $0.124/kWhAviation at Helsinki-Vantaa (HEL) is marginal on price and would depend on mandate pricing.
Business plan assumptions
| Assumption | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Electricity tariff basis | Negotiated PPA at $0.045/kWh | Real 2026 corporate PPAs run $0.025–0.079/kWh. FFA's own workbook records the Cambodia solar park at $0.03877. |
| Site retail proxy (for comparison) | $0.124/kWh | The database's business column is a retail proxy, not a contract. |
| Process efficiency | 67% | FFA design basis. The pilot proved the process; it was not tuned for efficiency. |
| Non-energy cost | $0.132/L ($0.50/gal) | Reconciles FFA's $1.90/gal all-in methanol figure. PLACEHOLDER. |
| Methanol-to-fuel yield | 55% | PLACEHOLDER pending FFA confirmation. |
| Base plant | 3 t/day — 1,000 gal/day, $4.5M, 1,800 kW | FFA's Methanol Synthesis Unit Scaling Cost. |
| Scaling rule | Linear output; cost −8% per doubling, capped at −15% | FFA-directed. Cap reached at 4×, consistent with 'minimal economies of scale beyond 3 t/day'. |
| National fuel split | Gasoline 45%, diesel 25%, jet 9% | US refinery yields (EIA), applied to national oil consumption. |
| National oil consumption | 173,519 bbl/day | Worldometer 2024 (BP / EIA / Oil & Gas Journal). |
| Main airport | Helsinki-Vantaa (HEL) | Finland's principal hub and a major Asia–Europe transfer point. |
| Hub share of national jet fuel | 85% | Assumption — concentration of uplift at the principal hub. FFA to refine. |
Open-market economics — best product
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Best product | Diesel | |
| Production cost | $1.97/L | $7.46/gal |
| Local market price | $2.90/L | $10.99/gal |
| Margin | 32% | |
| EBITDA per base unit | $707,606/yr | |
| Payback on a base unit | 6.4 years | |
| Products clearing the local price | Diesel, Gasoline, Kerosene | of three |
Aviation programme — sited at Helsinki-Vantaa (HEL)
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Airport | Helsinki-Vantaa (HEL) | Finland's principal hub and a major Asia–Europe transfer point. |
| National jet fuel | 239,404,164 gal/yr | 906,242,918 L/yr |
| Uplift at this hub | 203,493,540 gal/yr | at 85% of national |
| Programme target — 10% of hub | 20,349,354 gal/yr | 77,030,648 L/yr |
| Plant size | 101× the base unit | scaled, −15% cost |
| Capital required | $387.7M | |
| Continuous power | 182,460 kW | 1.0% of the national grid |
| Kerosene production cost | $1.89/L | $7.14/gal |
| Local jet fuel price | $2.09/L | $7.92/gal |
| Aviation margin | +10% | positive |
| Programme revenue | $161,071,085/yr | |
| Programme EBITDA | $15,752,193/yr | |
| Programme payback | 24.6 years | |
| CO₂ removed | 194,502 tonnes/yr | at $200/t = $38,900,477 |
| O₂ returned | 209,215 tonnes/yr |
Road programme — for comparison
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| National road fuel | 1,862,032,389 gal/yr | 7,048,556,026 L/yr |
| Programme target — 10% of road | 186,203,239 gal/yr | |
| Plant size | 928× the base unit | |
| Capital required | $3,548M |
Pros of FFA operating in Finland
- Workable margin: 32% on diesel.
- Acceptable payback on a base unit: 6.4 years.
- All three products clear the local market price, so the plant is not tied to one offtake.
- Strong wind resource at the site: 8.0 m/s mean at 50 m.
Cons and open questions
- Aviation margin is thin (10%); the airport programme would depend on mandate pricing rather than price competition.
- The airport programme needs 182 MW, 1.0% of national generation — enough to require dedicated supply.
3
Norway
Capital city - Oslo · wind 4.7 m/s · retail proxy $0.109/kWhAviation at Oslo Gardermoen (OSL) is marginal on price and would depend on mandate pricing.
Business plan assumptions
| Assumption | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Electricity tariff basis | Negotiated PPA at $0.045/kWh | Real 2026 corporate PPAs run $0.025–0.079/kWh. FFA's own workbook records the Cambodia solar park at $0.03877. |
| Site retail proxy (for comparison) | $0.109/kWh | The database's business column is a retail proxy, not a contract. |
| Process efficiency | 67% | FFA design basis. The pilot proved the process; it was not tuned for efficiency. |
| Non-energy cost | $0.132/L ($0.50/gal) | Reconciles FFA's $1.90/gal all-in methanol figure. PLACEHOLDER. |
| Methanol-to-fuel yield | 55% | PLACEHOLDER pending FFA confirmation. |
| Base plant | 3 t/day — 1,000 gal/day, $4.5M, 1,800 kW | FFA's Methanol Synthesis Unit Scaling Cost. |
| Scaling rule | Linear output; cost −8% per doubling, capped at −15% | FFA-directed. Cap reached at 4×, consistent with 'minimal economies of scale beyond 3 t/day'. |
| National fuel split | Gasoline 45%, diesel 25%, jet 9% | US refinery yields (EIA), applied to national oil consumption. |
| National oil consumption | 234,358 bbl/day | Worldometer 2024 (BP / EIA / Oil & Gas Journal). |
| Main airport | Oslo Gardermoen (OSL) | Norway's principal hub; already a site of aviation-biofuel blending trials. |
| Hub share of national jet fuel | 55% | Assumption — concentration of uplift at the principal hub. FFA to refine. |
Open-market economics — best product
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Best product | Diesel | |
| Production cost | $1.75/L | $6.62/gal |
| Local market price | $2.60/L | $9.83/gal |
| Margin | 33% | |
| EBITDA per base unit | $643,573/yr | |
| Payback on a base unit | 7.0 years | |
| Products clearing the local price | Diesel, Gasoline, Kerosene | of three |
Aviation programme — sited at Oslo Gardermoen (OSL)
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Airport | Oslo Gardermoen (OSL) | Norway's principal hub; already a site of aviation-biofuel blending trials. |
| National jet fuel | 323,343,733 gal/yr | 1,223,988,599 L/yr |
| Uplift at this hub | 177,839,053 gal/yr | at 55% of national |
| Programme target — 10% of hub | 17,783,905 gal/yr | 67,319,373 L/yr |
| Plant size | 89× the base unit | scaled, −15% cost |
| Capital required | $338.8M | |
| Continuous power | 159,457 kW | 0.4% of the national grid |
| Kerosene production cost | $1.67/L | $6.34/gal |
| Local jet fuel price | $1.87/L | $7.08/gal |
| Aviation margin | +10% | positive |
| Programme revenue | $125,887,227/yr | |
| Programme EBITDA | $13,176,511/yr | |
| Programme payback | 25.7 years | |
| CO₂ removed | 169,981 tonnes/yr | at $200/t = $33,996,283 |
| O₂ returned | 182,839 tonnes/yr |
Road programme — for comparison
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| National road fuel | 2,514,895,698 gal/yr | 9,519,911,324 L/yr |
| Programme target — 10% of road | 251,489,570 gal/yr | |
| Plant size | 1253× the base unit | |
| Capital required | $4,792M |
Pros of FFA operating in Norway
- Workable margin: 33% on diesel.
- Acceptable payback on a base unit: 7.0 years.
- All three products clear the local market price, so the plant is not tied to one offtake.
- The airport programme needs 159 MW — 0.4% of the national grid, which is readily absorbed.
Cons and open questions
- Aviation margin is thin (10%); the airport programme would depend on mandate pricing rather than price competition.
4
Cambodia
Bokor Mountain / Kampot · wind 7.0 m/s · retail proxy $0.026/kWhAviation at Phnom Penh International (PNH) is viable on price today.
Business plan assumptions
| Assumption | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Electricity tariff basis | Negotiated PPA at $0.045/kWh | Real 2026 corporate PPAs run $0.025–0.079/kWh. FFA's own workbook records the Cambodia solar park at $0.03877. |
| Site retail proxy (for comparison) | $0.026/kWh | The database's business column is a retail proxy, not a contract. |
| Process efficiency | 67% | FFA design basis. The pilot proved the process; it was not tuned for efficiency. |
| Non-energy cost | $0.132/L ($0.50/gal) | Reconciles FFA's $1.90/gal all-in methanol figure. PLACEHOLDER. |
| Methanol-to-fuel yield | 55% | PLACEHOLDER pending FFA confirmation. |
| Base plant | 3 t/day — 1,000 gal/day, $4.5M, 1,800 kW | FFA's Methanol Synthesis Unit Scaling Cost. |
| Scaling rule | Linear output; cost −8% per doubling, capped at −15% | FFA-directed. Cap reached at 4×, consistent with 'minimal economies of scale beyond 3 t/day'. |
| National fuel split | Gasoline 45%, diesel 25%, jet 9% | US refinery yields (EIA), applied to national oil consumption. |
| National oil consumption | 73,533 bbl/day | Worldometer 2024 (BP / EIA / Oil & Gas Journal). |
| Main airport | Phnom Penh International (PNH) | Cambodia's main international gateway. |
| Hub share of national jet fuel | 70% | Assumption — concentration of uplift at the principal hub. FFA to refine. |
Open-market economics — best product
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Best product | Diesel | |
| Production cost | $0.52/L | $1.96/gal |
| Local market price | $1.18/L | $4.47/gal |
| Margin | 56% | |
| EBITDA per base unit | $503,272/yr | |
| Payback on a base unit | 8.9 years | |
| Products clearing the local price | Diesel, Gasoline, Kerosene | of three |
Aviation programme — sited at Phnom Penh International (PNH)
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Airport | Phnom Penh International (PNH) | Cambodia's main international gateway. |
| National jet fuel | 101,453,480 gal/yr | 384,043,018 L/yr |
| Uplift at this hub | 71,017,436 gal/yr | at 70% of national |
| Programme target — 10% of hub | 7,101,744 gal/yr | 26,883,011 L/yr |
| Plant size | 35× the base unit | scaled, −15% cost |
| Capital required | $135.3M | |
| Continuous power | 63,677 kW | 2.1% of the national grid |
| Kerosene production cost | $0.50/L | $1.89/gal |
| Local jet fuel price | $0.85/L | $3.22/gal |
| Aviation margin | +41% | positive |
| Programme revenue | $22,850,560/yr | |
| Programme EBITDA | $9,412,264/yr | |
| Programme payback | 14.4 years | |
| CO₂ removed | 67,880 tonnes/yr | at $200/t = $13,575,921 |
| O₂ returned | 73,014 tonnes/yr |
Road programme — for comparison
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| National road fuel | 789,082,623 gal/yr | 2,987,001,252 L/yr |
| Programme target — 10% of road | 78,908,262 gal/yr | |
| Plant size | 393× the base unit | |
| Capital required | $1,503M |
Pros of FFA operating in Cambodia
- Strong headline margin: 56% on diesel at the best site.
- Acceptable payback on a base unit: 8.9 years.
- Cheap grid power at $0.026/kWh even before a PPA is negotiated.
- All three products clear the local market price, so the plant is not tied to one offtake.
- Aviation works on price: kerosene at $0.50/L against a $0.85/L market, a 41% margin.
- Strong wind resource at the site: 7.0 m/s mean at 50 m.
Cons and open questions
- The airport programme needs 64 MW, 2.1% of national generation — enough to require dedicated supply.
5
Myanmar
Ayeyarwady Delta coast · wind 5.6 m/s · retail proxy $0.050/kWhAviation at Yangon International (RGN) is marginal on price and would depend on mandate pricing.
Business plan assumptions
| Assumption | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Electricity tariff basis | Negotiated PPA at $0.045/kWh | Real 2026 corporate PPAs run $0.025–0.079/kWh. FFA's own workbook records the Cambodia solar park at $0.03877. |
| Site retail proxy (for comparison) | $0.050/kWh | The database's business column is a retail proxy, not a contract. |
| Process efficiency | 67% | FFA design basis. The pilot proved the process; it was not tuned for efficiency. |
| Non-energy cost | $0.132/L ($0.50/gal) | Reconciles FFA's $1.90/gal all-in methanol figure. PLACEHOLDER. |
| Methanol-to-fuel yield | 55% | PLACEHOLDER pending FFA confirmation. |
| Base plant | 3 t/day — 1,000 gal/day, $4.5M, 1,800 kW | FFA's Methanol Synthesis Unit Scaling Cost. |
| Scaling rule | Linear output; cost −8% per doubling, capped at −15% | FFA-directed. Cap reached at 4×, consistent with 'minimal economies of scale beyond 3 t/day'. |
| National fuel split | Gasoline 45%, diesel 25%, jet 9% | US refinery yields (EIA), applied to national oil consumption. |
| National oil consumption | 125,315 bbl/day | Worldometer 2024 (BP / EIA / Oil & Gas Journal). |
| Main airport | Yangon International (RGN) | Myanmar's principal international airport. |
| Hub share of national jet fuel | 75% | Assumption — concentration of uplift at the principal hub. FFA to refine. |
Open-market economics — best product
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Best product | Diesel | |
| Production cost | $0.87/L | $3.31/gal |
| Local market price | $1.18/L | $4.47/gal |
| Margin | 26% | |
| EBITDA per base unit | $232,695/yr | |
| Payback on a base unit | 19.3 years | |
| Products clearing the local price | Diesel, Gasoline, Kerosene | of three |
Aviation programme — sited at Yangon International (RGN)
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Airport | Yangon International (RGN) | Myanmar's principal international airport. |
| National jet fuel | 172,897,106 gal/yr | 654,486,432 L/yr |
| Uplift at this hub | 129,672,829 gal/yr | at 75% of national |
| Programme target — 10% of hub | 12,967,283 gal/yr | 49,086,482 L/yr |
| Plant size | 65× the base unit | scaled, −15% cost |
| Capital required | $247.1M | |
| Continuous power | 116,270 kW | 1.9% of the national grid |
| Kerosene production cost | $0.84/L | $3.18/gal |
| Local jet fuel price | $0.85/L | $3.22/gal |
| Aviation margin | +1% | positive |
| Programme revenue | $41,723,510/yr | |
| Programme EBITDA | $517,240/yr | |
| Programme payback | 477.7 years | |
| CO₂ removed | 123,943 tonnes/yr | at $200/t = $24,788,674 |
| O₂ returned | 133,319 tonnes/yr |
Road programme — for comparison
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| National road fuel | 1,344,755,265 gal/yr | 5,090,450,028 L/yr |
| Programme target — 10% of road | 134,475,526 gal/yr | |
| Plant size | 670× the base unit | |
| Capital required | $2,562M |
Pros of FFA operating in Myanmar
- Workable margin: 26% on diesel.
- Cheap grid power at $0.050/kWh even before a PPA is negotiated.
- All three products clear the local market price, so the plant is not tied to one offtake.
Cons and open questions
- Slow payback on a base unit: 19.3 years, which is hard to fund on price alone.
- Aviation margin is thin (1%); the airport programme would depend on mandate pricing rather than price competition.
- The airport programme needs 116 MW, 1.9% of national generation — enough to require dedicated supply.
6
Sri Lanka
Capital city - Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte · wind 3.8 m/s · retail proxy $0.057/kWhAviation at Bandaranaike International (CMB) does not work on price. It requires a RefuelEU-style mandate, where the buyer's alternative is a penalty rather than cheaper fossil fuel.
Business plan assumptions
| Assumption | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Electricity tariff basis | Negotiated PPA at $0.045/kWh | Real 2026 corporate PPAs run $0.025–0.079/kWh. FFA's own workbook records the Cambodia solar park at $0.03877. |
| Site retail proxy (for comparison) | $0.057/kWh | The database's business column is a retail proxy, not a contract. |
| Process efficiency | 67% | FFA design basis. The pilot proved the process; it was not tuned for efficiency. |
| Non-energy cost | $0.132/L ($0.50/gal) | Reconciles FFA's $1.90/gal all-in methanol figure. PLACEHOLDER. |
| Methanol-to-fuel yield | 55% | PLACEHOLDER pending FFA confirmation. |
| Base plant | 3 t/day — 1,000 gal/day, $4.5M, 1,800 kW | FFA's Methanol Synthesis Unit Scaling Cost. |
| Scaling rule | Linear output; cost −8% per doubling, capped at −15% | FFA-directed. Cap reached at 4×, consistent with 'minimal economies of scale beyond 3 t/day'. |
| National fuel split | Gasoline 45%, diesel 25%, jet 9% | US refinery yields (EIA), applied to national oil consumption. |
| National oil consumption | 91,962 bbl/day | Worldometer 2024 (BP / EIA / Oil & Gas Journal). |
| Main airport | Bandaranaike International (CMB) | Sri Lanka's main hub, near Colombo. |
| Hub share of national jet fuel | 90% | Assumption — concentration of uplift at the principal hub. FFA to refine. |
Open-market economics — best product
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Best product | Diesel | |
| Production cost | $0.98/L | $3.70/gal |
| Local market price | $1.24/L | $4.69/gal |
| Margin | 21% | |
| EBITDA per base unit | $198,612/yr | |
| Payback on a base unit | 22.7 years | |
| Products clearing the local price | Diesel, Gasoline | of three |
Aviation programme — sited at Bandaranaike International (CMB)
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Airport | Bandaranaike International (CMB) | Sri Lanka's main hub, near Colombo. |
| National jet fuel | 126,879,971 gal/yr | 480,292,713 L/yr |
| Uplift at this hub | 114,191,974 gal/yr | at 90% of national |
| Programme target — 10% of hub | 11,419,197 gal/yr | 43,226,344 L/yr |
| Plant size | 57× the base unit | scaled, −15% cost |
| Capital required | $217.6M | |
| Continuous power | 102,389 kW | 2.1% of the national grid |
| Kerosene production cost | $0.94/L | $3.55/gal |
| Local jet fuel price | $0.89/L | $3.38/gal |
| Aviation margin | -5% | LOSS at the local price |
| Programme revenue | $38,579,512/yr | |
| Programme EBITDA | $-1,988,734/yr | |
| Programme payback | n/a — loss-making on price | |
| CO₂ removed | 109,147 tonnes/yr | at $200/t = $21,829,304 |
| O₂ returned | 117,403 tonnes/yr |
Road programme — for comparison
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| National road fuel | 986,844,222 gal/yr | 3,735,609,986 L/yr |
| Programme target — 10% of road | 98,684,422 gal/yr | |
| Plant size | 492× the base unit | |
| Capital required | $1,880M |
Pros of FFA operating in Sri Lanka
- Workable margin: 21% on diesel.
- Cheap grid power at $0.057/kWh even before a PPA is negotiated.
Cons and open questions
- Slow payback on a base unit: 22.7 years, which is hard to fund on price alone.
- Aviation loses money at the local jet price (-5%): kerosene costs $0.94/L against a $0.89/L market. Only a RefuelEU-style mandate makes the airport programme viable.
- The airport programme needs 102 MW, 2.1% of national generation — enough to require dedicated supply.
- Weak wind resource at the chosen site (3.8 m/s), so power would come from grid or solar rather than on-site wind.
7
Spain
Alcudia Bay / north coast · wind 6.4 m/s · retail proxy $0.135/kWhAviation at Madrid-Barajas (MAD) does not work on price. It requires a RefuelEU-style mandate, where the buyer's alternative is a penalty rather than cheaper fossil fuel.
Business plan assumptions
| Assumption | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Electricity tariff basis | Negotiated PPA at $0.045/kWh | Real 2026 corporate PPAs run $0.025–0.079/kWh. FFA's own workbook records the Cambodia solar park at $0.03877. |
| Site retail proxy (for comparison) | $0.135/kWh | The database's business column is a retail proxy, not a contract. |
| Process efficiency | 67% | FFA design basis. The pilot proved the process; it was not tuned for efficiency. |
| Non-energy cost | $0.132/L ($0.50/gal) | Reconciles FFA's $1.90/gal all-in methanol figure. PLACEHOLDER. |
| Methanol-to-fuel yield | 55% | PLACEHOLDER pending FFA confirmation. |
| Base plant | 3 t/day — 1,000 gal/day, $4.5M, 1,800 kW | FFA's Methanol Synthesis Unit Scaling Cost. |
| Scaling rule | Linear output; cost −8% per doubling, capped at −15% | FFA-directed. Cap reached at 4×, consistent with 'minimal economies of scale beyond 3 t/day'. |
| National fuel split | Gasoline 45%, diesel 25%, jet 9% | US refinery yields (EIA), applied to national oil consumption. |
| National oil consumption | 1,322,492 bbl/day | Worldometer 2024 (BP / EIA / Oil & Gas Journal). |
| Main airport | Madrid-Barajas (MAD) | Spain's largest hub; Barcelona (BCN) is the obvious second site. |
| Hub share of national jet fuel | 35% | Assumption — concentration of uplift at the principal hub. FFA to refine. |
Open-market economics — best product
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Best product | Diesel | |
| Production cost | $2.13/L | $8.08/gal |
| Local market price | $2.36/L | $8.93/gal |
| Margin | 10% | |
| EBITDA per base unit | $171,107/yr | |
| Payback on a base unit | 26.3 years | |
| Products clearing the local price | Diesel, Gasoline | of three |
Aviation programme — sited at Madrid-Barajas (MAD)
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Airport | Madrid-Barajas (MAD) | Spain's largest hub; Barcelona (BCN) is the obvious second site. |
| National jet fuel | 1,824,642,212 gal/yr | 6,907,018,877 L/yr |
| Uplift at this hub | 638,624,774 gal/yr | at 35% of national |
| Programme target — 10% of hub | 63,862,477 gal/yr | 241,745,661 L/yr |
| Plant size | 318× the base unit | scaled, −15% cost |
| Capital required | $1,216.8M | |
| Continuous power | 572,615 kW | 0.5% of the national grid |
| Kerosene production cost | $2.04/L | $7.73/gal |
| Local jet fuel price | $1.70/L | $6.44/gal |
| Aviation margin | -20% | LOSS at the local price |
| Programme revenue | $410,967,623/yr | |
| Programme EBITDA | $-82,713,097/yr | |
| Programme payback | n/a — loss-making on price | |
| CO₂ removed | 610,408 tonnes/yr | at $200/t = $122,081,559 |
| O₂ returned | 656,581 tonnes/yr |
Road programme — for comparison
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| National road fuel | 14,191,661,652 gal/yr | 53,721,257,934 L/yr |
| Programme target — 10% of road | 1,419,166,165 gal/yr | |
| Plant size | 7069× the base unit | |
| Capital required | $27,040M |
Pros of FFA operating in Spain
- The airport programme needs 573 MW — 0.5% of the national grid, which is readily absorbed.
Cons and open questions
- Thin margin on the open market: only 10% on diesel, so a small cost or price move erases it.
- Slow payback on a base unit: 26.3 years, which is hard to fund on price alone.
- Aviation loses money at the local jet price (-20%): kerosene costs $2.04/L against a $1.70/L market. Only a RefuelEU-style mandate makes the airport programme viable.
- The airport programme needs $1,217M of capital — beyond a first-of-a-kind raise.
8
Sweden
Capital city - Stockholm · wind 4.9 m/s · retail proxy $0.150/kWhAviation at Stockholm Arlanda (ARN) does not work on price. It requires a RefuelEU-style mandate, where the buyer's alternative is a penalty rather than cheaper fossil fuel.
Business plan assumptions
| Assumption | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Electricity tariff basis | Negotiated PPA at $0.045/kWh | Real 2026 corporate PPAs run $0.025–0.079/kWh. FFA's own workbook records the Cambodia solar park at $0.03877. |
| Site retail proxy (for comparison) | $0.150/kWh | The database's business column is a retail proxy, not a contract. |
| Process efficiency | 67% | FFA design basis. The pilot proved the process; it was not tuned for efficiency. |
| Non-energy cost | $0.132/L ($0.50/gal) | Reconciles FFA's $1.90/gal all-in methanol figure. PLACEHOLDER. |
| Methanol-to-fuel yield | 55% | PLACEHOLDER pending FFA confirmation. |
| Base plant | 3 t/day — 1,000 gal/day, $4.5M, 1,800 kW | FFA's Methanol Synthesis Unit Scaling Cost. |
| Scaling rule | Linear output; cost −8% per doubling, capped at −15% | FFA-directed. Cap reached at 4×, consistent with 'minimal economies of scale beyond 3 t/day'. |
| National fuel split | Gasoline 45%, diesel 25%, jet 9% | US refinery yields (EIA), applied to national oil consumption. |
| National oil consumption | 265,481 bbl/day | Worldometer 2024 (BP / EIA / Oil & Gas Journal). |
| Main airport | Stockholm Arlanda (ARN) | Sweden's principal hub. |
| Hub share of national jet fuel | 60% | Assumption — concentration of uplift at the principal hub. FFA to refine. |
Open-market economics — best product
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Best product | Diesel | |
| Production cost | $2.36/L | $8.92/gal |
| Local market price | $2.54/L | $9.60/gal |
| Margin | 7% | |
| EBITDA per base unit | $136,502/yr | |
| Payback on a base unit | 33.0 years | |
| Products clearing the local price | Diesel, Gasoline | of three |
Aviation programme — sited at Stockholm Arlanda (ARN)
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Airport | Stockholm Arlanda (ARN) | Sweden's principal hub. |
| National jet fuel | 366,284,136 gal/yr | 1,386,535,630 L/yr |
| Uplift at this hub | 219,770,481 gal/yr | at 60% of national |
| Programme target — 10% of hub | 21,977,048 gal/yr | 83,192,138 L/yr |
| Plant size | 109× the base unit | scaled, −15% cost |
| Capital required | $418.7M | |
| Continuous power | 197,055 kW | 0.4% of the national grid |
| Kerosene production cost | $2.25/L | $8.53/gal |
| Local jet fuel price | $1.83/L | $6.92/gal |
| Aviation margin | -23% | LOSS at the local price |
| Programme revenue | $152,033,632/yr | |
| Programme EBITDA | $-35,513,730/yr | |
| Programme payback | n/a — loss-making on price | |
| CO₂ removed | 210,060 tonnes/yr | at $200/t = $42,012,030 |
| O₂ returned | 225,950 tonnes/yr |
Road programme — for comparison
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| National road fuel | 2,848,876,611 gal/yr | 10,784,166,012 L/yr |
| Programme target — 10% of road | 284,887,661 gal/yr | |
| Plant size | 1419× the base unit | |
| Capital required | $5,428M |
Pros of FFA operating in Sweden
- The airport programme needs 197 MW — 0.4% of the national grid, which is readily absorbed.
Cons and open questions
- Thin margin on the open market: only 7% on diesel, so a small cost or price move erases it.
- Slow payback on a base unit: 33.0 years, which is hard to fund on price alone.
- Aviation loses money at the local jet price (-23%): kerosene costs $2.25/L against a $1.83/L market. Only a RefuelEU-style mandate makes the airport programme viable.
9
Netherlands
Capital city - Amsterdam · wind 5.1 m/s · retail proxy $0.220/kWhAviation at Amsterdam Schiphol (AMS) does not work on price. It requires a RefuelEU-style mandate, where the buyer's alternative is a penalty rather than cheaper fossil fuel.
Business plan assumptions
| Assumption | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Electricity tariff basis | Negotiated PPA at $0.045/kWh | Real 2026 corporate PPAs run $0.025–0.079/kWh. FFA's own workbook records the Cambodia solar park at $0.03877. |
| Site retail proxy (for comparison) | $0.220/kWh | The database's business column is a retail proxy, not a contract. |
| Process efficiency | 67% | FFA design basis. The pilot proved the process; it was not tuned for efficiency. |
| Non-energy cost | $0.132/L ($0.50/gal) | Reconciles FFA's $1.90/gal all-in methanol figure. PLACEHOLDER. |
| Methanol-to-fuel yield | 55% | PLACEHOLDER pending FFA confirmation. |
| Base plant | 3 t/day — 1,000 gal/day, $4.5M, 1,800 kW | FFA's Methanol Synthesis Unit Scaling Cost. |
| Scaling rule | Linear output; cost −8% per doubling, capped at −15% | FFA-directed. Cap reached at 4×, consistent with 'minimal economies of scale beyond 3 t/day'. |
| National fuel split | Gasoline 45%, diesel 25%, jet 9% | US refinery yields (EIA), applied to national oil consumption. |
| National oil consumption | 817,866 bbl/day | Worldometer 2024 (BP / EIA / Oil & Gas Journal). |
| Main airport | Amsterdam Schiphol (AMS) | One of Europe's largest hubs; very large uplift. |
| Hub share of national jet fuel | 90% | Assumption — concentration of uplift at the principal hub. FFA to refine. |
Open-market economics — best product
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Best product | Diesel | |
| Production cost | $3.40/L | $12.85/gal |
| Local market price | $3.46/L | $13.09/gal |
| Margin | 2% | |
| EBITDA per base unit | $46,750/yr | |
| Payback on a base unit | 96.3 years | |
| Products clearing the local price | Diesel | of three |
Aviation programme — sited at Amsterdam Schiphol (AMS)
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Airport | Amsterdam Schiphol (AMS) | One of Europe's largest hubs; very large uplift. |
| National jet fuel | 1,128,409,720 gal/yr | 4,271,493,439 L/yr |
| Uplift at this hub | 1,015,568,748 gal/yr | at 90% of national |
| Programme target — 10% of hub | 101,556,875 gal/yr | 384,434,410 L/yr |
| Plant size | 506× the base unit | scaled, −15% cost |
| Capital required | $1,935.0M | |
| Continuous power | 910,598 kW | 2.3% of the national grid |
| Kerosene production cost | $3.24/L | $12.28/gal |
| Local jet fuel price | $2.49/L | $9.43/gal |
| Aviation margin | -30% | LOSS at the local price |
| Programme revenue | $957,433,897/yr | |
| Programme EBITDA | $-289,992,646/yr | |
| Programme payback | n/a — loss-making on price | |
| CO₂ removed | 970,697 tonnes/yr | at $200/t = $194,139,377 |
| O₂ returned | 1,044,124 tonnes/yr |
Road programme — for comparison
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| National road fuel | 8,776,520,046 gal/yr | 33,222,726,747 L/yr |
| Programme target — 10% of road | 877,652,005 gal/yr | |
| Plant size | 4372× the base unit | |
| Capital required | $16,722M |
Pros of FFA operating in Netherlands
Cons and open questions
- Thin margin on the open market: only 2% on diesel, so a small cost or price move erases it.
- Slow payback on a base unit: 96.3 years, which is hard to fund on price alone.
- Expensive retail power at $0.220/kWh; the case depends entirely on securing a PPA.
- Only diesel clears the local price; the site has no product flexibility.
- Aviation loses money at the local jet price (-30%): kerosene costs $3.24/L against a $2.49/L market. Only a RefuelEU-style mandate makes the airport programme viable.
- The airport programme needs 911 MW, 2.3% of national generation — enough to require dedicated supply.
- The airport programme needs $1,935M of capital — beyond a first-of-a-kind raise.
10
Portugal
Cabo Carvoeiro / Peniche · wind 8.5 m/s · retail proxy $0.158/kWhAviation at Lisbon Humberto Delgado (LIS) does not work on price. It requires a RefuelEU-style mandate, where the buyer's alternative is a penalty rather than cheaper fossil fuel.
Business plan assumptions
| Assumption | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Electricity tariff basis | Negotiated PPA at $0.045/kWh | Real 2026 corporate PPAs run $0.025–0.079/kWh. FFA's own workbook records the Cambodia solar park at $0.03877. |
| Site retail proxy (for comparison) | $0.158/kWh | The database's business column is a retail proxy, not a contract. |
| Process efficiency | 67% | FFA design basis. The pilot proved the process; it was not tuned for efficiency. |
| Non-energy cost | $0.132/L ($0.50/gal) | Reconciles FFA's $1.90/gal all-in methanol figure. PLACEHOLDER. |
| Methanol-to-fuel yield | 55% | PLACEHOLDER pending FFA confirmation. |
| Base plant | 3 t/day — 1,000 gal/day, $4.5M, 1,800 kW | FFA's Methanol Synthesis Unit Scaling Cost. |
| Scaling rule | Linear output; cost −8% per doubling, capped at −15% | FFA-directed. Cap reached at 4×, consistent with 'minimal economies of scale beyond 3 t/day'. |
| National fuel split | Gasoline 45%, diesel 25%, jet 9% | US refinery yields (EIA), applied to national oil consumption. |
| National oil consumption | 218,516 bbl/day | Worldometer 2024 (BP / EIA / Oil & Gas Journal). |
| Main airport | Lisbon Humberto Delgado (LIS) | Portugal's principal hub. |
| Hub share of national jet fuel | 55% | Assumption — concentration of uplift at the principal hub. FFA to refine. |
Open-market economics — best product
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Best product | Diesel | |
| Production cost | $2.48/L | $9.37/gal |
| Local market price | $2.54/L | $9.60/gal |
| Margin | 2% | |
| EBITDA per base unit | $46,310/yr | |
| Payback on a base unit | 97.2 years | |
| Products clearing the local price | Diesel | of three |
Aviation programme — sited at Lisbon Humberto Delgado (LIS)
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Airport | Lisbon Humberto Delgado (LIS) | Portugal's principal hub. |
| National jet fuel | 301,486,525 gal/yr | 1,141,250,107 L/yr |
| Uplift at this hub | 165,817,589 gal/yr | at 55% of national |
| Programme target — 10% of hub | 16,581,759 gal/yr | 62,768,756 L/yr |
| Plant size | 83× the base unit | scaled, −15% cost |
| Capital required | $315.9M | |
| Continuous power | 148,678 kW | 0.7% of the national grid |
| Kerosene production cost | $2.37/L | $8.96/gal |
| Local jet fuel price | $1.83/L | $6.92/gal |
| Aviation margin | -30% | LOSS at the local price |
| Programme revenue | $114,709,901/yr | |
| Programme EBITDA | $-33,900,281/yr | |
| Programme payback | n/a — loss-making on price | |
| CO₂ removed | 158,491 tonnes/yr | at $200/t = $31,698,222 |
| O₂ returned | 170,480 tonnes/yr |
Road programme — for comparison
| Measure | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| National road fuel | 2,344,895,196 gal/yr | 8,876,389,724 L/yr |
| Programme target — 10% of road | 234,489,520 gal/yr | |
| Plant size | 1168× the base unit | |
| Capital required | $4,468M |
Pros of FFA operating in Portugal
- The airport programme needs 149 MW — 0.7% of the national grid, which is readily absorbed.
- Strong wind resource at the site: 8.5 m/s mean at 50 m.
Cons and open questions
- Thin margin on the open market: only 2% on diesel, so a small cost or price move erases it.
- Slow payback on a base unit: 97.2 years, which is hard to fund on price alone.
- Expensive retail power at $0.158/kWh; the case depends entirely on securing a PPA.
- Only diesel clears the local price; the site has no product flexibility.
- Aviation loses money at the local jet price (-30%): kerosene costs $2.37/L against a $1.83/L market. Only a RefuelEU-style mandate makes the airport programme viable.
What the ten locations show together
Power is not the constraint; margin is. Every airport programme in this list draws between 0.4% and 2.3% of its national grid — large, but absorbable, and Iceland's 25 MW is under one percent of a grid with surplus renewable capacity.
Only two of the ten support aviation on price. Iceland (32% kerosene margin) and Cambodia (41%) clear the local jet price. Finland, Norway and Myanmar are thin. Sri Lanka, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands and Portugal lose money against untaxed jet fuel — for those five the airport programme only works under a RefuelEU-style mandate, where the buyer must comply and the alternative is a penalty rather than cheaper fossil fuel.
Iceland is the entry point. Fourteen base units, or one plant scaled to the same output for $52M, at Keflavík — the only aviation programme in the database under $100M, in a country with cheap unsubsidised power, no fuel subsidy, all three products viable, and 0.9% of the grid required.
Site Explorer — All 394 Locations
Every site in the database. Select a country and a location to see its economics across all three products, at your chosen electricity price basis. Figures in both litres and US gallons.
Select a site
| Country | |
| Location | |
| Price basis | |
| Tariff ($/kWh) | |
| Efficiency | 67% |
| Units |
Site profile
All three products at this site
Verdict
Environment — CO₂ Taken, O₂ Returned
Every litre of fuel Fuel From Air produces draws carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and returns pure oxygen to it. The quantities come from FFA's own constants. So does the honest limit on what that means.
Per litre of fuel produced
| Fuel | CO₂ removed (kg/L) | CO₂ removed (kg/gal) | O₂ returned (kg/L) | O₂ returned (kg/gal) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diesel | 2.626 | 9.940 | 2.824 | 10.690 |
| Gasoline | 2.296 | 8.691 | 2.609 | 9.876 |
| Kerosene / Jet A1 | 2.525 | 9.558 | 2.716 | 10.281 |
Source: fuelfromair.com FUELS array — FFA's own per-fuel constants.
Per 3 t/day unit, per year
One unit produces 759,921 litres (200,750 US gallons) of finished fuel a year. On the diesel basis that draws 1,996 tonnes of CO₂ from the atmosphere and returns 2,146 tonnes of pure O₂ to it. On the kerosene basis — the aviation case — it is 1,919 tonnes and 2,064 tonnes. For scale, a typical passenger car emits about 4.6 tonnes of CO₂ a year, so a single unit handles the carbon of roughly 430 cars.
What displacement means for a single car
A car covering 12,000 miles a year at 25.5 mpg burns 470.6 gallons. On fossil gasoline that adds 4.09 tonnes of new carbon to the atmosphere — carbon that had been underground for millions of years. On FFA gasoline the same 4.09 tonnes is drawn from the air to make the fuel and returned when it burns. Net addition: zero.
A correction worth making internally
Arizona Fuels Corporation's CO₂ Extraction deck states that each car running on AFC fuel “will remove 13,176 lbs of CO₂ from the atmosphere each year”, and that the US fleet would remove 2,423 million tonnes annually. Neither figure survives scrutiny, and both should be corrected before the deck is shown to an investor or a regulator.
The arithmetic does not match the slide. 470.6 gallons × 28 lbs is 13,177 lbs of CO₂ consumed as feedstock. The same slide states that burning the fuel emits 8,188 lbs. A removal figure would be the difference — 4,988 lbs, not 13,176. The larger number is gross consumption presented as net removal.
And even 4,988 lbs is not removal. A circular fuel cannot be a net sink: the carbon that goes in comes back out when the fuel is burned. Cross-checked against EPA figures, a gallon of gasoline contains about 2.42 kg of carbon — 19.6 lbs of CO₂. The deck's 28 lbs is 1.43× that, and the excess is process loss, not sequestration. It does not stay out of the atmosphere.
The honest claim is stronger than the overstated one
“Removes 2,423 million tonnes” is false, and a regulator or a serious investor will find that out in an afternoon. “Eliminates 1,700 million tonnes of new fossil carbon a year” is true — and it is the entire decarbonisation case for US ground transport in a single line.
FFA does not need to claim removal. Displacing every tonne of new carbon from a sector that cannot electrify is a complete argument on its own, and it is one that survives audit.
Fleet scale
Market figures from Arizona Fuels Corporation, CO₂ Extraction (2015 basis). Displacement computed on fuelfromair.com's own constants: 2.296 kg CO₂ per litre of gasoline (8.691 kg/gal, 19.2 lbs/gal). Note this differs from the AFC deck's 28 lbs/gal; the site figure is used throughout this analysis.
The honest framing — circular, not sequestration
This is the point on which the environmental claim stands or falls, and it should be stated before anyone else states it.
FFA's carbon is circular, not sequestered. The CO₂ drawn from the air to make a litre is released again when that litre is burned. Fuel From Air is not a carbon sink and does not claim to be one.
The benefit is displacement. A litre of fossil diesel adds 2.626 kg of new carbon to the atmosphere — carbon that sat underground for millions of years. A litre of FFA diesel recycles 2.626 kg that was already in the air. Net addition: zero. That is a real and substantial benefit, and it is a different claim from removal.
The oxygen is a genuine by-product. Splitting water to make hydrogen releases O₂, and the process vents it. It is not a carbon claim and should not be presented as one — but it is a real output, and industrial and medical oxygen is a real market worth investigating as a by-product line.
Circular carbon against fossil — the comparison
Carbon Credits — What FFA Can and Cannot Sell
A deep look at the carbon markets, what a credit actually is, and an honest assessment of which of them Fuel From Air can enter. The conclusion materially changes Pillar 4.
What a carbon credit actually is
A carbon credit is one tonne of CO₂ that either was not emitted, or was taken out of the air and kept out. Those two things sound similar and price completely differently.
Avoidance credits represent emissions that did not happen — a forest not felled, a coal plant not built. They are abundant, contested, and cheap: generic avoidance trades below $5 a tonne, and the weighted average spot price across the whole voluntary market is about $5.60.
Removal credits (CDR) represent a tonne physically extracted from the atmosphere and stored. They are scarce and expensive: biochar $189–200, enhanced rock weathering $400, direct air capture with storage $450 to over $1,000 a tonne in 2026 forward offers.
Compliance markets are a separate system entirely. EU ETS allowances are projected to average $91–93 a tonne in 2026 and are set by auction, not project economics. They cannot be used against a voluntary net-zero claim, and voluntary credits cannot be surrendered against an ETS obligation.
The eligibility question — and it is the whole question
The EU's Carbon Removals Certification Framework (Regulation 2024/3012) sets three durability tiers for a removal credit: permanent removals requiring centuries of storage, carbon storage in products requiring a minimum of 35 years, and carbon farming requiring a minimum of five.
FFA's carbon comes out of the air and goes back into it the moment the fuel is burned — a matter of weeks. It meets none of those tiers.
Fuel From Air cannot sell removal credits on its fuel carbon. Any model showing Pillar 4 earning $200 a tonne of removal credits is modelling revenue that does not exist.
The price ladder, and where FFA can actually play
| Basis | Revenue per unit per year | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Removal credit at $200/t — the plan's placeholder | $383,760 | NOT AVAILABLE — fails durability |
| Removal credit at $450/t — DACCS forward | $863,460 | NOT AVAILABLE — fails durability |
| Avoidance credit at $8/t | $15,350 | Available, but marginal |
| Avoidance at $5.60/t — weighted spot average | $10,745 | Available, but marginal |
The gap between the placeholder and the reality is a factor of 25 to 36.
What FFA can legitimately sell
1. Avoided emissions, not removals. Every litre of FFA fuel displaces a litre of fossil fuel that would have added new carbon. That avoided tonne is real and saleable — but it prices as avoidance, at single digits per tonne, not as removal.
2. The fuel itself, into a mandate — and this is where the value sits. Under RefuelEU Aviation the buyer must blend synthetic fuel regardless of price; the alternative is a penalty, not cheaper fossil. FFA is not selling a credit at all here — it is selling a compliance product at a premium. That is Anchor 2, and it is worth far more than any credit line.
3. Aviation compliance channels. CORSIA Phase I (2024–2026) has created the first concrete compliance demand in aviation. Decisions on including CDR in the UK SAF mandate and in national ETS programmes could open further channels — but for the fuel, not for FFA's circular carbon.
4. The oxygen, as an industrial commodity. Each unit vents roughly 2,064 tonnes of pure O₂ a year. Medical and industrial oxygen is a genuine market and worth investigating as a by-product line. It is not an environmental credit and must not be dressed as one.
Marketing to large users — the realistic route
The question of whether FFA can offset and market to big users has a clear answer, but not the expected one. A corporate buyer with a net-zero commitment wants removal, and increasingly wants durable removal — the Oxford Principles push buyers up the durability ladder, not down it. FFA cannot supply that.
What FFA can supply is a fuel with a materially lower carbon intensity than the fossil alternative. An airline, a haulier or a mining operation does not want a certificate — it wants to reduce the emissions it reports, and buying FFA fuel does that directly and verifiably. The transaction is a fuel supply contract, not a credit trade.
That is a better business in any case. Credit markets are volatile, contested and thin: the voluntary market is worth around €3bn in 2026 against a global fuel market measured in trillions, retirements fell 7% last year, and integrity standards are tightening against exactly the kind of claim a circular fuel might be tempted to make. Selling fuel into a mandate is a larger, firmer and more defensible position than selling credits into a market that would rightly question them.
Environment & Carbon
The atmospheric exchange, the honest comparison against fossil fuel, and the carbon-credit reality. Every litre FFA produces takes CO₂ from the air and returns pure O₂ — but the carbon is recycled, not sequestered, and that distinction decides what can be sold.
Atmospheric exchange — per unit and per programme
One 3 t/day unit draws 1,745–1,996 tonnes of CO₂ a year depending on product, and returns 1,983–2,146 tonnes of pure oxygen.
Circular carbon, not sequestration
A litre of fossil diesel adds 2.626 kg of new carbon. A litre of FFA diesel recycles 2.626 kg already in the air. Net addition zero — displacement, not removal.
The carbon price ladder and Pillar 4 revisited
Removal credits price at $189–1,000 a tonne but require durable storage FFA cannot provide. Avoidance credits are open to FFA at $5.60–8. The gap against the plan's $200 placeholder is 25–36×.
3 charts in this group. Sources: Sylvera, Regreener, Senken and Carbon Direct 2026 market data; EU Regulation 2024/3012 (CRCF).
Siting Economics
Electricity is the decisive variable. A gallon of methanol needs 43.2 kWh — 11.4 kWh per litre — so the local tariff, not the technology, determines whether a site is a business or a loss. At $0.01/kWh the electricity in a gallon costs $0.43; at $0.45/kWh the same gallon carries $19.31. The plant is identical in both places. These four charts map that spread across FFA's 394 locations and identify where the economics actually close.
Electricity tariff — the basis that decides everything
Electricity is almost the whole cost: 43.2 kWh per gallon of methanol. The 394-location database holds retail tariffs — its business column is labelled a proxy in FFA's own workbook, median $0.185/kWh. A plant operator signs a power-purchase agreement: real 2026 corporate PPAs run $0.025–0.079, and FFA's own workbook records the Cambodia National Solar Park at $0.03877. This analysis uses $0.045/kWh as the base case throughout, with retail shown as a sensitivity. On the proxy, the case is understated roughly fourfold — gasoline reads $2.59/L instead of $0.73/L, and viability 8 of 68 instead of 63.
Is a PPA location-dependent? Yes — sharply
A PPA prices the local generation cost, resource quality and cost of capital — none of which are uniform. Real 2026 PPAs run from $0.0163/kWh in Saudi Arabia to $0.1523 in Sweden, a 9.3× spread. In five countries — Iran, Cambodia, Finland, Norway and Sweden — the PPA is dearer than the retail tariff, so an operator there signs a retail contract instead. The model uses min(PPA, retail) at every site.
Electricity price by location
The 15 cheapest and 15 most expensive sites, consumer against contractor tariff. The green line is the tariff implied by FFA's own $1.90/gal figure — very few sites reach it.
Production cost by location
The same sites, converted to methanol cost. Two reference lines: FFA's stated $1.90/gal ($0.50/L) and the $5.50/gal ($1.45/L) retail price. A site only works if its bar sits left of the retail line.
Where the economics work — all 394 locations
Every site plotted against its tariff. 93 of 394 produce below methanol retail; 301 do not. Knowing which is which is what Pillar 2 licenses.
Top 20 countries by best site
The cheapest-power location in each country, labelled with its tariff. These are P1's deployment candidates.
4 charts in this group. All figures in both litres and US gallons.
The Three Fuels
Diesel, gasoline and kerosene are not interchangeable. Each has its own lower heating value, so each carries a different electricity burden and a different carbon balance. Diesel costs the most to synthesise but sells at roughly an 18% premium — which more than covers the difference, making it the strongest open-market product. Kerosene's weak showing is a pricing artefact, not weak demand: Jet A1 is sold untaxed at wholesale, which is why Pillar 3 sells on mandate rather than price.
Energy intensity and production cost by fuel
LHV at 67% efficiency, and the resulting cost at three tariffs. Diesel needs 14.84 kWh/L (56.2 kWh/gal); gasoline 13.27 (50.2); kerosene 14.15 (53.6).
Efficiency basis — 67% design, confirmed
The pilot's measured draw implies about 39%; FFA's design basis is 67%. FFA has confirmed the pilot proved the process and was never tuned. The 1.56x gap is engineering headroom a commercial unit is built to capture.
Production cost by fuel — 20 cheapest-power countries
All three products at each site, with the local pump marked. Diesel viable in 11 of 68 countries, gasoline 8, kerosene 5.
Carbon balance by fuel
CO₂ consumed and O₂ vented per unit produced. Diesel removes the most carbon per litre (2.626 kg/L, 9.94 kg/gal) — which is Pillar 4's basis.
4 charts in this group. All figures in both litres and US gallons.
Monetisation Groups
The database is not 394 equal prospects. Grouping every site by its margin against the local market turns it into a sales sequence: Group 1 is approached with a price, Group 2 with a contract, Group 3 waits for mandate or supply-security pricing, and Group 4 is ranked rather than discarded so a tariff change moves a site up. The deep dive carries the finding that matters most — being in Group 1 is not the same as being investable.
Monetisation targeting map — four groups
All 394 locations by distance from breakeven, per fuel. Diesel gives 73 profitable today plus 44 within 10% — 117 live or near-live targets.
Every location ranked by margin
The full distribution for gasoline. 55 sites profitable, 48 within 10%, 45 within 30%, 246 beyond.
Group 1 deep dive — 73 sites, 11 countries
Ranked by payback rather than margin, the order changes completely. Cambodia has the best margin (56%) but Iceland pays back twice as fast, because Iceland clears on a $2.35/L pump rather than a cheap tariff.
3 charts in this group. All figures in both litres and US gallons.
Competing With the Pump
The plan's central commercial risk, stated plainly. On the placeholder methanol-to-gasoline assumptions, FFA petrol does not undercut the local pump anywhere in the database. The mechanism is simple: the MTG step discards 45% of the volume and adds cost, and the result competes against refined crude produced at enormous scale. Improving MTG performance narrows the gap materially but does not, on this modelling, close it against unsubsidised crude.
Can FFA undercut the local pump?
Every location with a known pump price. Every point sits above the parity line.
FFA synthetic petrol versus local pump, by country
Best site per country. The ratio label shows how far short each falls.
Why local-electricity petrol is hard
The mechanism: pump price and electricity price correlate at r = 0.62. Where fuel is worth replacing, power is dear; where power is cheap, fuel is cheaper still.
What would close the gap?
At 90% yield and $0.10/L conversion, gasoline falls to $0.65/L — below the US pump. The route is unproven rather than hopeless.
The tariff threshold for pump parity
How cheap power must be for FFA to match the pump at each price level.
5 charts in this group. All figures in both litres and US gallons.
Subsidy & Oil
Two common defences examined and, in one case, dismissed. Subsidy is not the barrier: only 5 of 68 countries price petrol below cost recovery, and removing their subsidy entirely changes nothing. Oil volatility is real — Brent averaged $69.45 over the decade with a 24.5% coefficient of variation — and it works in FFA's favour, since a plant's cost is flat against crude. But the gap is structural, not cyclical: even the largest supply disruption in the history of the oil market did not close it.
Is the local pump price subsidised?
IEA/IMF price-gap method. Only Iran, Brunei, Malaysia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia price below cost recovery. The other 63 tax fuel above it.
The subsidy trap — why this is structural
The single chart that explains the problem. Cheap-power countries subsidise their fuel; fuel-taxing countries have dear power. FFA is squeezed at both ends — but 14 of its 19 viable countries are not subsidised.
Set A — with subsidy (the market as it is)
Actual 2026 pump prices, including government subsidy where it exists.
Set B — subsidy removed
Subsidised countries repriced to cost recovery. The result barely moves: 65 of 68 with subsidy, 67 without — removing subsidy changes almost nothing.
Brent crude, 2016–2026
Mean $69.45, standard deviation $17.02, high 2.3x the low. Mean absolute annual move 26%.
What oil volatility means for FFA
FFA's cost is flat against oil, so volatility is pure upside optionality. But petrol needs Brent at $168 — 70% above the highest annual average ever recorded.
The 2026 stress test — when oil supply fails
The Strait of Hormuz closure: 14 mb/d shut in, supply down to 94.5 mb/d, OECD stocks at their lowest since 1990.
Supply security — FFA's cost does not move when oil does
Through a doubling and halving of Brent, FFA held at $1.25/L. At the $144 April peak fossil reached $1.11/L — still short. The worst crisis on record got fossil to 86% of breakeven and no further.
8 charts in this group. All figures in both litres and US gallons.
Route to Market & Scale
How the pillars reach a buyer, and at what scale. The three anchors are a sequence rather than a choice: supply security funds early units at high margin without competing on price, mandate scales under regulatory cover, and the open market is the volume endgame. The scale charts carry the honest counterweight — a 3 t/day unit produces about 13 barrels a day, so FFA can address small markets or well-chosen niches inside large ones, but not large markets at a ten-percent share.
Three route-to-market anchors
Annual EBITDA per $4.5M unit. Same plant, same cost base; only the customer and the pricing basis change. Petrol on the open market is the only losing case.
Anchors × pillars — where each pillar finds its buyer
P3 Aviation on Anchor 1 is the single red cell — and precisely the case the pump analysis dissects. P3 survives because Anchor 2 is its route.
Demand cases — what one unit serves
One unit serves 427 cars or 13 trucks; a regional jet needs 10 units, a transatlantic jet 32.
Location versus containers and capex — 10% of national demand
Units and capital to supply a tenth of each country's demand, road against aviation.
The entry point — smallest achievable programmes
Iceland's aviation sector: 14 units, $64.9M. The only ten-percent target in the database under $100M.
One plant as a share of national road-fuel demand
Even the largest FFA unit supplies under a hundredth of a percent. Scale is the constraint, not cost.
Scaling rule — cost per gallon and capex
Linear output, −8% per doubling, capped at −15%. The cap is reached at 4x, consistent with FFA's own note on minimal economies beyond 3 t/day.
Scaled plant versus many base units
The scaling rule cuts Iceland's aviation capex from $64.9M to $55.2M.
Incumbent cost stack versus FFA
What a location spends now. The amber block is distribution and marketing — the layer FFA removes by producing on site.
National fuel spend and the distribution component
Total spend on road and aviation fuel, and how much of it is distribution rather than product.
Logistics cost avoided by siting at the demand point
Honest caveat: $0.2–3.6M a year against $3–30M of capex. It supports the siting decision; it does not justify the investment.
Real PPA prices versus the database retail proxy
The database carries retail tariffs. On a real PPA, viability goes from 11 to 63 of 68 countries for diesel.
12 charts in this group. All figures in both litres and US gallons.
07
The Team
Meet the team, with dedicated sections for Dr Steve Clamp, Professor Tony Marmont and Mr Azroy Salim.
Contact the team →
Team section
Dr Steve Clamp
Steve has devoted more than 30 years to aerospace development, with particular expertise in aerospace vehicle design and structural analysis across both military and civil aerospace engineering programs.
Throughout his career, Steve has worked with some of the world’s leading aerospace organizations, including Boeing, Airbus, British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce Aero Engines. More recently, he has been involved in the new space race, contributing to major launch vehicle programs including SLS and New Glenn.
Steve first joined forces with Professor Tony Marmont in 1992, when he became Chief Engineer at Fuel From Air Turbines. He was rapidly promoted to Managing Director, and his close collaboration with Tony has continued ever since.
As the North American partner for Fuel From Air, Steve has presented the FFA business model to several major corporations, helping to build international awareness of the technology and its commercial potential.
Steve’s main motivation is to introduce and develop Fuel From Air technology in regions that are currently heavily dependent on, and constrained by, the dominant fossil-fuel industry. His focus is on practical deployment, engineering credibility and creating an alternative pathway for communities and industries that need cleaner, more secure access to liquid fuels.
The hangar roof is intentionally suspended on a cable‑supported system to dynamically decouple it from the primary structure and prevent excitation of its natural frequencies by rotor‑induced loads. The suspension cables are fitted with Stockbridge dampers to suppress vortex‑induced vibrations, attenuate transverse oscillations, and reduce transmissibility of rotor‑induced loads at blade‑passing frequencies—specifically three impulse events per rotor revolution—into the roof system. This configuration maintains frequency separation between the roof’s dominant modes and the helicopter’s BPF‑driven excitation spectrum, preventing resonance and minimizing structural response under rotor wash and approach transients. On approach, two mic‑tell clicks command the door‑opening sequence and deploy the landing pad; once the aircraft is inside, another two clicks close and secure the system. I had the privilege of flying this on multiple trips with Tony from the north of Scotland to the south of England, wonderful engineering.
West Beacon Farm · Loughborough
Memorable Person · Wind Energy Pioneer
Professor Tony Marmont
DSc · DTech · Energy Medal for Lifetime Achievement
Few people did more to bring small and medium wind generation into the UK than Professor Tony Marmont. After making his fortune in soft drinks and plastics, he turned his energy toward renewable generation following the 1970s oil crisis — and quickly recognised that practical, distributed wind power was central to any credible energy transition.
In the early 1990s Tony acquired the rights to the American Fuel From Air Turbines technology and backed the establishment of Fuel From Air Turbines UK — making it one of the few British-owned companies producing 300 kW class machines. The Carter machines were unusual for their time: two-bladed, soft-tower, downwind designs that prioritised energy capture over conformity to the dominant three-blade European norm. Great Orton wind farm in Cumbria — Britain's only farm of Carter turbines — became the operational legacy of that effort.
Tony then founded Beacon Energy in 1992 as a not-for-profit organisation and turned West Beacon Farm near Loughborough into one of the world's most complete working demonstrations of an integrated renewable energy network — combining wind turbines, photovoltaics, ground-source heat pumps, hydrogen storage with electrolysers and fuel cells, hydro generation and CHP, all feeding a common DC bus.
He endowed renewable energy research centres at three universities, including CREST at Loughborough, AMSET at De Montfort, and the renewable energy programme at the University of Nottingham.
Steve Clamp is honoured to have known Tony as a mentor, collaborator, and friend. His pragmatic, evidence-led approach to wind turbine engineering — and his refusal to be deterred by conventional wisdom — remain a constant influence on the Fuel From Air programme.
Fuel From Air Turbines UK
Beacon Energy
West Beacon Farm
CREST
AMSET
Tony Guest Lecture, Engineers Without Borders (EWB) - Warwick University.
Text adapted from the uploaded SteveClamp Memorable People section.
Mr Azroy Salim
Marketing Director · American Citizen
Thirty years of marketing and growth leadership across emerging-market ventures, building brands from launch to scale.
Azroy brings the commercial and route-to-market discipline that takes a proven process from demonstration into sustained offtake. His work spans the emerging markets where Fuel From Air's siting economics are strongest — the countries where cheap renewable power and unsubsidised fuel meet, and where a first commercial unit has the clearest path to a customer.
He serves alongside Dr Clamp as Marketing Director of Anglodia Co., Ltd., the Anglo-Cambodian aerospace engineering consultancy.
08
Projects
Engineering detail on the conversion plant, its cost structure, and the pilot programmes that prove the process.
Four project workstreams. Each is restricted — select one and enter the passcode to open it.
🔒
Restricted
Enter the passcode to open this project.
← All projects
Conversion Plant Design & Models
The Fuel From Air conversion plant is a single integrated chain rather than a collection of separate processes. Air enters a capture tower where a fine alkaline mist strips carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; the loaded solution passes to an electrolytic stripper which releases the CO2 and regenerates the capture medium. In parallel, renewable electricity drives a hydrogen electrolyser. The two streams meet at the synthesis reactors, where CO2 and H2 are converted over catalysts to methanol, and the methanol is upgraded to finished hydrocarbon fuel. Every carbon atom in the product came out of the air it will eventually return to.
The design is deliberately modular. The 1 tonne/day and 3 tonne/day units are housed in 8′×40′ steel shipping containers; the 1/10 tonne/day demonstrator fits an 8′×20′ trailer. This is not a packaging convenience but a strategic choice: a plant that travels to the demand point removes the distribution layer that accounts for roughly a quarter of every litre sold at a pump, and it can be sited where the electricity is cheapest rather than where a refinery happens to stand.
Three model sizes are engineered and costed. The demonstrator produces 33 gallons a day and draws 50 kW. The 1 tonne/day unit produces 333 gallons a day on 600 kW, with a 65-litre reactor. The 3 tonne/day unit — the commercial base case — produces 1,000 gallons a day from three 65-litre reactors on 1,800 kW, consuming 4,500 kg of atmospheric CO2 every day.
Beyond 3 tonnes a day the electrolyser reaches its practical limit, and further scale delivers little additional efficiency. That constraint shapes the entire deployment strategy: growth comes from replicating units rather than enlarging them, which suits a modular product and a dispersed market far better than it suits a refinery.
Conversion Plant Cost Structure
The capital cost of a conversion plant divides into three principal blocks. The electrolyser is the largest single item, accounting for $1.5M of the $4.5M cost of a 3 tonne/day unit — a third of the total. The methanol synthesis unit itself is a further $1.5M. The remaining $1.5M covers the well-bore gas generator, which is optional depending on site configuration. Scaling down, the 1 tonne/day unit costs $2M and the demonstrator $425,000.
The economies of scale are steep at the small end and flatten quickly. Moving from the demonstrator to the 1 tonne/day unit takes production cost from $4.50 to $2.40 a gallon — a 47% reduction. The step from 1 to 3 tonnes a day yields a further 21%, reaching $1.90 a gallon. Beyond that point the curve flattens: the working assumption is a further 8% per doubling, capped at 15% in total, which the engineering supports and which is consistent with the electrolyser constraint.
Operating cost is dominated by one input. A gallon of methanol requires 43.2 kWh of electricity — 11.4 kWh per litre. At three cents a kilowatt-hour that is $1.30 of power in every gallon; at thirty cents it is $12.96. No other line item comes close, and no amount of engineering elsewhere compensates for a poorly chosen site. The $1.90 per gallon figure is an all-in cost that already includes electricity at the tariff the design assumes.
This is why the siting database matters commercially rather than academically. The technology is identical everywhere; the economics are not. A plant is a business in one location and a loss in another, and the difference is decided before a single component is ordered.
UK Pilot Plant
The United Kingdom pilot plant is where the process stopped being a proposal and became a demonstrated fact. Built and operated over five years of development, it took carbon dioxide from the air and water from the mains, and produced gasoline and kerosene that burned in real engines. The BBC filmed the results, and the international interest that followed was not in a concept but in a container that worked.
The installation shows the full chain in operating form: the capture tower rising above the container line, the CO2 release electrolyser, hydrogen electrolysis and compression, the Haskel compressor set, gas storage, the methanol synthesis vessels with their insulated reactor columns, methanol and water separation, and the final petrol production stage. Feed tank V101 and product tank V102 sit at either end of a process that fits inside a shipping container.
An important qualification travels with every number the pilot produced. The plant was built to prove the process, not to run at maximum efficiency. Its measured power draw implies an efficiency of roughly 39% against the lower heating value of its product, while the design basis is 67%. That gap is not a disappointment; it is engineering headroom that a tuned commercial unit is specified to capture, and it is worth a 1.56× reduction in production cost.
The pilot also carries the origin of the whole endeavour. Professor Tony Marmont set the challenge — to fly a helicopter on fuel made from air — and the AFS aircraft that flew on the resulting Jet A1, painted with the words Jet Fuel from Air · Clean & Carbon Neutral, is the proof that the chemistry reaches all the way to a turbine.
Asia Pilot Plant
The analysis behind this plan points consistently towards South and Southeast Asia for the first commercial deployment, and an Asian pilot is the logical bridge between the UK demonstrator and a revenue-generating unit.
Cambodia presents the strongest case in the database. Electricity at the Bokor Mountain and Kampot sites is contracted at $0.026 per kilowatt-hour — the second cheapest in 394 locations — and the country's own National Solar Park has a power purchase agreement recorded at $0.03877. Fuel is not subsidised: Cambodia taxes petrol some 27 cents a litre above cost recovery, so a producer competes against a real price rather than a government cheque. All three products — diesel, gasoline and kerosene — clear the local market at these tariffs, and diesel returns a 56% margin. Six separate sites qualify, including the capital.
Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Laos follow on the same logic: cheap power, unsubsidised fuel, and demand concentrated enough that a modular plant can serve a meaningful share of it. Laos requires only 16 units to supply a tenth of its national aviation fuel — $73M of capital for a country-scale programme.
An Asian pilot would test three things the UK plant could not. First, whether the 67% design efficiency is achievable in a tuned unit. Second, whether the methanol-to-fuel conversion yield and cost hold at commercial scale — the two numbers on which the downstream economics turn. Third, whether a container-scale plant can be sited, permitted and operated at a customer's location rather than a laboratory's, which is the premise the entire route-to-market rests on.