Study Proposes Stochastic Multi-Criteria Framework to Rank Aviation Fuel Pathways Under Carbon Pricing Uncertainty
Why It MattersTreating carbon and cost as uncertain scenario inputs instead of fixed numbers signals that sustainable fuel pathways will be judged on exposure ranges under CORSIA and EU ETS, not single-point cost comparisons.
What happened
A study submitted 29 July 2026, revised and accepted 31 August 2026, and published 3 September 2026 in MDPI's Aerospace Science and Engineering section presents a stochastic multi-criteria screening framework for evaluating alternative aviation fuel pathways under carbon pricing uncertainty. The framework compares conventional Jet-A1 as a fossil reference against two drop-in sustainable aviation fuel pathways: hydroprocessed ester and fatty acid sustainable aviation fuel (HEFA-SAF) and synthetic Power-to-Liquid sustainable aviation fuel (PtL-SAF). Liquid hydrogen is discussed as a prospective non-drop-in pathway but excluded from the quantitative ranking because it requires different aircraft systems, infrastructure, and certification boundaries.
The methodology combines stoichiometric carbon accounting, energy-normalized well-to-wake carbon intensity analysis, energy integration screening, techno-economic evaluation, Monte Carlo simulation, scenario-based carbon-cost trade-off screening, and utility score evaluation, with life-cycle carbon and cost values treated as scenario inputs rather than fixed parameters. Results indicate that both HEFA-SAF and PtL-SAF reduce carbon price exposure relative to Jet-A1, though their cost performance remains sensitive to fuel price, carbon intensity, and carbon price uncertainty.
The study notes that aviation accounts for approximately 2.5-3% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions, with total climate impact amplified by non-CO2 effects including nitrogen oxides, contrail formation, and aviation-induced cirrus clouds. The framework also incorporates exergy analysis alongside first-law energy metrics to identify thermodynamic irreversibilities within propulsion systems, and it cites ICAO's Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) and the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) as direct cost and compliance drivers shaping the economic feasibility of alternative fuel pathways.
Industry impact & what to watch
This work belongs to a growing body of academic screening tools built to help fuel-pathway decisions hold up once carbon prices and feedstock costs stop being treated as known quantities. Techno-economic assessments of aviation fuels have historically leaned on single-point cost and carbon-intensity figures; folding Monte Carlo simulation and scenario-based trade-off screening into the comparison is a methodological shift toward ranges and probabilities, aimed at exposing which pathway holds up across a spread of CORSIA and EU ETS price paths rather than just one assumed trajectory.
How this segment works today is that HEFA-SAF and PtL-SAF are judged on cost and carbon intensity that vary with feedstock, energy source, and the compliance regime in force, so a pathway that looks favorable under one carbon price assumption can look weaker under another. Excluding liquid hydrogen from the quantitative ranking, because it demands different aircraft, infrastructure, and certification boundaries, illustrates a recurring split in this literature between drop-in fuels assessed on today's aircraft and infrastructure and non-drop-in options assessed on a separate, longer adoption path.
What would sharpen this picture next is whether the framework's utility scores get applied to real feedstock and regional carbon-price data, since the current results describe sensitivity and direction rather than a specific ranking outcome for any given market or compliance year.
