Economic feasibility of low-carbon ethylene, propylene and jet fuel production

Jet fuel and key chemical building blocks (e.g. ethylene) cannot easily be substituted with zero-carbon alternatives and remain interconnected in a low-carbon future. Fischer-Tropsch and methanol synthesis offer pathways toward large-scale production of low-carbon synthetic hydrocarbons. This paper estimates the future costs of low-carbon ethylene, propylene, and jet fuel via those routes with feedstocks of either biomass or electricity with captured CO 2 . It finds while biobased hydrocarbons could fall below 1.1 USD/kg, electricity-based hydrocarbons using atmospheric CO 2 , even with the optimistic views, result in 4 USD/kg for ethylene, 2.3 USD/kg for propylene and 2.9 USD/kg for jet fuel. Using industry-captured CO 2 as the carbon source could cut production costs by 28 %, but its future availability is likely to be limited. Offsetting existing hydrocarbon industries through direct air carbon capture and storage is projected to be more economical compared to electricity-based hydrocarbons. This research highlights the necessity for transitioning to a net zero power system to reduce electricity prices. As these technologies each produce multiple products and their business cases depend on sales of all products, a coherent cross-sectoral strategy to incentivise low-carbon fuels and chemicals would be valuable to ensure that the overall production reflects demand throughout a low-carbon transition. • The economic case for low-carbon ethylene, propylene and jet fuel is examined. • Ethylene and propylene most economical via methanol pathway, and jet fuel via FT. • Electricity-based hydrocarbons could fall to 4 USD/kg ethylene, 2.9 USD/kg jet fuel. • Biobased hydrocarbons economical near future, barring a pessimistic view. • Coordinated policies are necessary across markets for multiple plant outputs.