The gap, visualised
Our project tracker tells a story in two numbers. Announced pipeline: 57.1 MTPA. Operational capacity: 6.64 MTPA. That's an 88% gap between what the industry has promised and what it can actually deliver today.
| Status | Projects | Implied capital need |
|---|---|---|
| Planning (pre-FEED) | 258 | $15-20B (early-stage, high attrition) |
| Announced (post-feasibility) | 93 | $8-12B |
| Under construction | 71 | $10-15B (committed, drawdown in progress) |
| Operational | 92 | Funded (expansion capex ongoing) |
The $45B figure (BloombergNEF, 2024) covers the capital required to bring enough capacity online to meet the combined 2030 mandates: ReFuelEU 6%, UK 10%, Japan 10%, and the implicit demand from §45Z-incentivised US production. It does not include the additional $15-25B needed for upstream infrastructure (green hydrogen electrolysers, DAC plants, biomass collection networks).
The money exists. The mandates exist. What's missing is the connective tissue between capital looking for deployment and projects looking for finance.
Where the capital is flowing today
Q1-Q2 2026 saw three structural shifts in SAF capital allocation:
- Tier-1 banks entering project debt. HSBC, BNP Paribas, and Standard Chartered all closed SAF-specific project finance facilities in 2025. The asset class is no longer venture-grade — it's infrastructure.
- DFI co-investment accelerating. The European Investment Bank, IFC, and US DOE Loan Program Office are actively co-investing alongside private capital, de-risking the first-loss tranche that commercial banks won't touch.
- Offtake-backed finance becoming the norm. Projects with 10+ year offtake agreements from creditworthy airlines (Lufthansa, Air France-KLM, Delta, United) are clearing project finance at LIBOR+200-300bps. Those without offtake are struggling to close.
What's blocking the rest
If the capital exists and the mandates guarantee demand, why is 88% of the pipeline still pre-FID? Three structural barriers:
- Technology risk at scale. HEFA is proven (TRL 9) but feedstock-constrained. ATJ and G-FT are scaling (TRL 7-8) but haven't yet demonstrated consistent 300+ kt/year throughput. PtL is pre-commercial (TRL 5-7). Lenders price technology risk into debt terms — and for novel pathways, the premium is prohibitive without government backstops.
- Feedstock uncertainty. UCO and tallow prices are elevated and volatile. A HEFA plant's economics can swing 30% on feedstock alone. PtL plants face renewable-electricity price risk over 20-year asset lives. Neither risk is easily hedgeable.
- Regulatory fragmentation. ReFuelEU gives 25-year demand certainty in the EU. But the US (§45Z expires 2029), UK (RCM details still in consultation), and APAC (voluntary targets, not mandates) don't match that horizon. A global investor looking at SAF sees 20 different regulatory regimes with 20 different risk profiles. See our ReFuelEU, UK, and US 45Z reference pages.
Three windows for investors in 2026
- HEFA expansion (lowest risk, near-term returns). Proven technology, existing refining infrastructure, clear §45Z + ReFuelEU demand. Brownfield conversions at $300-500M. 12-18 month construction. ROI visible within 3 years. Risk: feedstock price + supply competition.
- European PtL FIDs (highest policy support, longest horizon). ReFuelEU e-SAF sub-mandate + UK RCM create the strongest demand + revenue certainty anywhere in the world. Greenfield at $1.5-2.5B. 3-4 year construction. ROI in 7-10 years. Risk: technology execution at first commercial scale.
- ATJ/G-FT in the Americas (diversified feedstock, §45Z-eligible). Ethanol and biomass feedstocks are abundant in the US, Brazil, and Canada. Plants at $500M-1B. 2-3 year construction. §45Z $1/gal credit covers the gap for first movers. Risk: §45Z extension beyond 2029 (political).
What the market needs now
The $45B gap won't close by writing bigger cheques at existing deal desks. It needs infrastructure:
- Standardised project data so investors can compare projects without commissioning bespoke due diligence for each one. That's what we're building.
- Structured offtake aggregation so mid-size airlines can pool demand and offer bankable volume commitments that projects need to reach FID.
- Cross-jurisdiction regulatory analysis so a fund looking at 20 projects across 10 countries can price the regulatory risk without hiring 10 local counsel.
These are the layers the market is missing. They're also the modules on the e-fuels·com platform.
Bottom line
The capital gap isn't a funding problem — it's a structuring problem. The money is there. The demand is guaranteed. What's missing is the market infrastructure that turns pipeline announcements into FIDs, FIDs into operating plants, and operating plants into the jet fuel that mandates require. The clock is running: 2030 compliance requires construction starts in 2026-2027. Every month of delay narrows the window.
For the latest pipeline data, explore the Market Intelligence module. For the regulatory comparison across 20 jurisdictions, see the Regulatory module.