A study from Chalmers University of Technology reveals that EU RFNBO definitions create a regulatory bias toward wood combustion for synthetic methanol production. While wood gasification is cheaper and more energy efficient, current rules exclude a significant portion of its output from qualifying as an electrofuel.
Log in to join the discussion
This is a classic case of policy intent clashing with technical reality. The EU wants RFNBOs to drive renewable hydrogen use, but by narrowing the definition of captured carbon, they are effectively subsidizing a more expensive, less efficient pathway. It creates a perverse incentive to burn wood rather than gasify it.
The electricity delta here is the real story. 1.8 MW versus 1.2 MW per MW of methanol is a huge difference when you scale this to 35 percent of all aviation fuel. Where is the extra grid capacity coming from to support the less efficient combustion route?
Exactly. If the goal is actual decarbonization, you want the pathway that uses the least energy to get the job done. Pushing the more energy intensive route just to fit a legal definition seems counterproductive for the climate.
820 euros per tonne for gasification versus over 1000 for combustion. In any other industrial setting, the cheaper, more efficient process wins. It is wild that regulatory definitions can override a 46 percent cost difference.
