INSIGHT CONVERSATION: Sarah Wilkin, Fly Green Alliance

You’ve worked across sectors -- from nuclear to biofuels and now aviation. How do these renewable efforts complement or compete with each other?

Policy is shaping not just deployment but also how we manage scarce feedstocks. Aviation faces a unique challenge because the same feedstocks used for SAF are also needed for hydrotreated vegetable oil, so scarcity is inevitable. That’s why diversifying into new feedstocks and technologies is critical.

This is where e-fuels and nuclear come in. Scaling green hydrogen and decarbonized electricity is essential because they’re the building blocks of future fuels and derivatives.

How do you see policy evolving, especially given the fragmentation between Eastern markets and Western policy-driven systems, in the backdrop of protectionism, policy changes, and trade deals?

Policy is moving fast. From January, the EU and the UK rolled out SAF mandates, and the US extended support through 45Z. At the same time, regional alliances are emerging: Asia has launched an industry association, Australia is forging bilateral deals, and South America -- rich in feedstocks -- is positioning itself as a major supplier. Notably, nothing in current policy prevents South American feedstocks from flowing into Europe.

Beyond mandates, institutions like EASA [EU Aviation Safety Agency] are active in Asia and Africa, funding feasibility studies and pilot projects alongside local governments. The recognition is clear: not every region can move at Europe’s pace, so there’s a push to help others keep up.

Europe may be the leader today, but aviation is global. Policies are increasingly designed not just to advance domestic goals but also to ensure that all regions with flights into Europe don’t fall behind. Fragmentation is real, but so are the efforts to bridge it.

Certification has become a flashpoint in Europe, especially around the International Sustainability and Carbon Certification’s role. What signal does this send to long-term investors?

The ISCC and the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials are global systems so, in principle, they should not be excluded from policy frameworks. If a certification is internationally recognized and it scientifically proves life-cycle GHG [greenhouse gas] benefits, it deserves support.

The real challenge lies in policy design. Rules often look workable on paper but fail in practice, and revising them can take one to two years, slowing momentum. Policymaking is never perfect. It aims for the majority but can miss realities on the ground.

That’s why industry groups are pushing for adjustments. Certification should build transparency and trust, not act as a barrier.

For investors, the signal is clear: the system is still evolving. There will be growing pains, but as long as certification frameworks remain grounded in proven GHG reductions, they will be central to scaling sustainable fuels. Recognizing feedstock origins is also part of this.

Other transport modes are diversifying, but aviation has SAF as its only large-scale pathway. With rising competition for limited feedstocks, how do you see availability for SAF going forward?

Aviation depends almost entirely on SAF, but even within SAF there are different pathways, such as bio-based and synthetic e-fuels. The competition for bio-feedstocks is already obvious. Road, shipping and aviation all draw on resources like used cooking oil, creating inevitable pressure.

That’s why we’re investing heavily in alternatives. Scaling green hydrogen and decarbonized electricity enables e-fuels that use CO2 as a feedstock. Unlike bio-based options, CO2 is abundant. In fact, we have more than we want.

If made efficient, e-fuels create a near-closed loop: capturing, recycling and reusing carbon. It’s not perfectly energy-efficient, but it offers a sustainable balance.

In the near term, HVO-derived fuels will remain essential across sectors. But over the long term, diversifying pathways with e-fuels is critical if aviation is to secure the supply it needs without being constrained by competition from road and marine.

There are multiple certified viable SAF pathways today. Is the challenge more about scaling technologies and slashing prices or achieving technology feasibility?

Bringing build costs down comes only from building more plants, learning from mistakes and improving efficiency of all aspects.

Most SAF plants today are engineered by people with refining or oil and gas backgrounds. The core engineering isn’t new, but processes like Fischer-Tropsch or pyrolysis are being pushed to the next level by applying decades of industrial know-how to new feedstocks and designs.

Government support is critical at this early stage. In the UK, grants have gone to first-of-a-kind SAF projects across multiple pathways -- including this year’s first nuclear-powered e-fuels project. Funding helps projects get through feasibility into pilot or demo scale. Some will fail due to overruns or delays, but that learning is essential.

It's similar to nuclear. The technology has existed since the 1950s, but advances like small modular are able to drive initial investment costs down due to the modular design aspect. SAF is the same -- once a design works, replication delivers “efficiency of series.”

Beyond technology, what other factors could accelerate SAF adoption and the broader aviation energy transition?

Great question. We’re trying to overhaul a fossil-based system that’s deeply embedded in the economy and in daily life. Oil is still one of the cheapest energy sources, and people are conditioned to expect energy at that price. Paying more is never popular, which makes this transition as much cultural and behavioral as technological.

That’s where communication and branding matter. My advertising background showed me the gap in how we talk about this shift. Now, agencies and creative sectors are working with energy transition players, helping mainstream the idea that engineering and chemical companies are central to societal change. Aviation touches everything we use, so normalizing the conversation is essential.

At Fly Green Alliance, we launched In the Loop to make net-zero and SAF more accessible by connecting highly technical or policy-heavy debates with everyday culture.

That is why Weiden + Kennedy, the group that came up with Nike’s ‘Just do it’, is now working with FGA to develop our nuclear for e-fuels initiative. Perception and culture are really important here as we build a new energy system, and we need that to be communicated globally in the right way. It’s their commitment to the transition and their own need to travel.

Airlines in different regions face different challenges in SAF scale-up. How do you bridge that gap?

The contrast is stark. US and European carriers often deal with mature policy frameworks, while Asian airlines face less developed ones. That’s why sustainability officers need strategy, but also flexibility. Sometimes progress is quick; other times, policy or infrastructure holds things back, so you engage investors or banks differently and often put work on hold, move sideways at times, until the framework improves for FID [final investment decision].

Learning from peers is key. Mistakes happen -- it’s part of the process -- but what matters is ensuring work is scientifically sound and transparent, and does not mislead at all to build trust. Some carriers embrace this openly.

Beyond policy frameworks, what concrete initiatives is your organization advancing to accelerate SAF and alternative fuels adoption?

One important point is our nuclear for e-fuels initiative, which is both new and global. We’re working with experts across hydrogen and nuclear to build a network of signatories and collaborators. That’s critical because collaboration accelerates progress, and the sheer number of collaborators demonstrates a market — attracting interest and, in turn, the investment needed to drive growth across all these sectors.

Another point is feedstocks. Most people think of used cooking oil or crop-based options, which are important, but we need to broaden the perspective. Electricity and hydrogen are also feedstocks, and aviation globally should treat them as such, like the UK working on integrating hydrogen, C02 capture and decarbonized electricity into decarbonization strategies. Aligning sectors to scale those volumes is essential to long-term decarbonization not just for aviation but for every sector.

You’ve talked about the role of nuclear-linked e-fuels and small modular reactors in aviation’s decarbonization. What timeline should airlines and aviation groups be working with?

The first real milestone here is 2033, aligned with the deployment of SMRs. These projects aren’t quick wins -- they take at least eight years to build. That means if airlines and aviation groups want to secure offtake, the window to engage with nuclear developers is right now, not years from now.

We’ve already published a detailed report on timelines, co-location and co-investment models, and the conclusion is clear: if the SAF and aviation industries wait until 2030 to get engaged, it will already be too late. By then competing sectors will be the offtakers and then e-fuels will be at greater risk and be even more unaffordable.

This is long term. FGA is working beyond 2030 targets, which is essential.