Name: 全球都在瘋搶航空燃油？✈️ 到底發生了什麼事！ (Why the World is Running Out of the Fuel Airlines Need Most)
Uploaded: 2026-03-28T17:36:10.000Z
Duration: 6 min 48 s

情態助動詞 B1

The future of flying may depend on... used cooking oil.

未來的飛行，或許就掌握在…廢食用油手中。

情態副詞

There's only one problem: the world can't produce enough of it.

但有個問題：全世界的產量根本不夠。

The airline industry hopes to slash emissions with sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF.

航空業希望透過可持續航空燃料，也就是 SAF，來大幅減少碳排放。

But the secret ingredient powering this fuel isn't rare or high-tech;

但這項燃料的祕密成分，既不稀有，也不高科技；

it's waste oil, collected from restaurant fryers and food factories, and

它就是廢棄油，從餐廳炸鍋和食品工廠收集來的，

demand for it is rising faster than the world can supply.

而它的需求成長速度，已經快過全世界的供應能力了。

Aviation accounts for around 2% of global CO2 emissions, and

航空大約佔全球二氧化碳排放量的 2%，

unlike cars or power grids, there is no battery solution that works for commercial flights at scale yet.

而且不像汽車或電網，目前還沒有適合商用班機大規模使用的電池解決方案。

Used cooking oil is not derived from traditional fossil fuel, and

廢食用油並非來自傳統的化石燃料，

its supply chain is something that needs to be deliberately set up.

The collections and the aggregations of used cooking oil are being done by smaller-scale companies, and

這些廢食用油的收集和聚集，都是由一些小型公司來進行的，

therefore the foundation is very different in terms of how it's compared to fossil fuel.

所以在和化石燃料比較時，基礎就非常不一樣了。

Around 80% of all SAF today is made using a technology called HEFA, hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids, which uses hydrogen to strip away oxygen and impurities, transforming these waste fats into high-performance fuel.

目前大約 80% 的 SAF 都是透過一種叫做 HEFA 的技術製造的，也就是加氫處理的酯類和脂肪酸，它利用氫氣去除氧氣和雜質，將這些廢棄的油脂轉化成高性能燃料。

This "fryer-to-flight" technology is no longer just a green experiment;

這項「從炸鍋到飛行」的技術，已經不再只是個環保實驗；

it's now a regulatory must as governments transition from gentle incentives to hard requirements.

隨著政府從溫和的獎勵措施轉向嚴格的要求，它現在已經是法規的必要條件了。

The UK and EU both launched mandates in 2025 that require airport suppliers to blend jet fuel with at least 2% SAF, but

英國和歐盟都在 2025 年推出了強制規定，要求機場供應商將噴射燃料與至少 2% 的 SAF 混合，

但從那之後，要求就開始分道揚鑣了。

The UK's mandate jumps to 10% by 2030, nearly double the EU's 6% requirement that year.

英國的強制規定在 2030 年將跳升至 10%，幾乎是歐盟同年 6% 的兩倍。

However, the EU's SAF mandate accelerates in the following decades, hitting 34% by 2040 and a massive 70% by 2050, while the UK's rises to 22% in 2040 as part of its broader Net Zero 2050 goal.

然而，歐盟的 SAF 強制規定在接下來幾十年會加速，到 2040 年達到 34%，到 2050 年更是驚人的 70%，而英國則在其更廣泛的「淨零 2050」目標下，到 2040 年上升至 22%。

Meanwhile, the US is using tax credits to chase a voluntary 3 billion gallon production target by 2030, roughly equivalent to 10% of projected demand.

同時，美國正透過稅收抵免措施，力求在 2030 年達成 30 億加侖的自願性生產目標，這大約相當於預期需求的 10%。

The country's ultimate goal is to produce 35 billion gallons by 2050 to satisfy 100% of domestic demand.

該國的最終目標是在 2050 年生產 350 億加侖，以滿足國內 100% 的需求。

While SAF generally costs 2 to 4 times more than conventional jet fuel, high demand in mandated markets has pushed prices even higher, with some airlines paying up to 5 times the price of fossil fuel.

雖然 SAF 的價格通常是傳統噴射燃料的 2 到 4 倍，但強制市場的高需求已將價格推得更高，有些航空公司支付的價格是化石燃料的 5 倍。

So in the short run, definitely there's a limited supply of the SAF stock, so therefore the prices will be driven up.

所以短期內，SAF 的供應肯定有限，是以價格會被推高。

The mandate itself will not be sufficient to drive up the supply;

單靠強制規定不足以帶動供應量；

you need more of the policy support to come into the supply side as well.

還需要更多政策支持來帶動供應端。

For example, you need to de-risk the project so that will attract more suppliers to come in and join the market.

例如，需要降低專案的風險，這樣才能吸引更多供應商加入市場。

So who is picking up the tab for this expensive fuel?

那麼，誰來為這種昂貴的燃料買單呢？

We all consider three stakeholders, right?

我們考慮了三方相關者，對吧？

And government definitely could come in to bear some of the costs through the tax credit as well as the grants.

政府當然可以透過稅收抵免和補助來承擔部分成本。

And for airline companies, usually they are operating in very thin margin, and

對於航空公司來說，他們的利潤通常非常微薄，

it is very difficult for them to bear this kind of cost, so passing through the prices is usually expected.

所以很難負擔這種成本，是以預計會將價格轉嫁出去。

I think the passengers will bear most of the cost in the competitive market.

我認為在競爭激烈的市場中，大部分成本將由乘客承擔。

Governments are tackling the SAF challenge with different strategies.

各國政府正以不同的策略來應對 SAF 的挑戰。

The UK has introduced a buyout price of £4.70 per liter, allowing airlines to pay a fee if they cannot source enough fuel, effectively turning the green mandate into a fossil fuel tax.

英國推出了每公升 4.70 英鎊的買價，允許航空公司若無法取得足夠燃料時支付費用，實際上將綠色指令轉化為化石燃料稅。

Meanwhile, Singapore is testing its own approach.

同時，新加坡正測試自己的方法。

Instead of a traditional mandate, it's shifting the cost directly to the traveler.

它沒有採用傳統的強制規定，而是直接將成本轉嫁給旅客。

Tickets sold from October for flights departing Singapore from 2027 will carry a mandatory SAF fee that can be as low as 1 Singapore dollar for a short hop to Bangkok or around 10 Singapore dollars for an economy seat to New York.

從 10 月份開始販售、預計 2027 年從新加坡出發的機票，將收取強制性的 SAF 費用，短程飛往曼谷可能低至 1 新加坡元，飛往紐約的經濟艙則約為 10 新加坡元。

The fee can top 40 Singapore dollars for long-haul travelers in premium cabins.

長途搭乘豪華艙位的旅客，費用可能高達 40 新加坡元。

The levy is designed to meet a 1% SAF blend that scales to 3 to 5% by 2030.

這項徵費旨在實現 1% 的 SAF 混合比例，並在 2030 年前擴大到 3% 到 5%。

And to keep costs predictable and avoid the price volatility seen in European markets, a government-owned nonprofit company will aggregate demand and centrally procure SAF using the levy funds.

同時，為了讓成本更可預測，並避免歐洲市場出現的價格波動，一家政府擁有的非營利公司將利用這筆徵費來聚集需求，並統一採購 SAF。

When you have the mandate, you are controlling for the volume, but

當你有強制規定時，你控制的是數量，

when you have the levy, you are basically setting up the cost.

但當你有徵費時，你基本上是在設定成本。

So that means when the SAF price fluctuates, you may not know the exact quantity of the SAF that you purchase.

所以這意味著，當 SAF 的價格波動時，你可能不知道你購買的 SAF 的確切數量。

So that is the major difference between two types of policies.

這就是兩種政策之間的主要差異。

Definitely the price is going to be going upwards because there's a limited supply, and

價格肯定會上漲，因為供應有限，

But in the medium and the long term, because we want to see that there will be more policy support for the suppliers as well, so therefore we wish that the suppliers will also be able to come in and to expand the production capacity.

但在中長期，因為我們希望看到供應商也能獲得更多政策支持，所以我們希望供應商也能加入並擴大產能。

So this will relieve the pressure for the prices.

The bigger bet, however, is what comes after the cooking oil.

然而，更大的賭注是廢食用油之後的發展。

In the United States, LanzaJet's ethanol-to-jet plant is now fully operating, a world first.

在美國，LanzaJet 的乙醇轉噴射燃料廠已經全面運作，這是全球首創。

DG Fuel's planned $4 billion facility is taking a different route, converting waste biomass into jet fuel using Fisher Tropsk technology.

DG Fuel 計畫斥資 40 億美元興建的工廠，則採取不同路線，利用 Fisher Tropsk 技術將廢棄生物質轉化為噴射燃料。

It has already secured deals with Delta and Air France-KLM.

它們已經和 Delta 和 Air France-KLM 簽訂了協議。

In Singapore, Aster is pursuing a similar shift.

在新加坡，Aster 也在推動類似的轉變。

We are advancing our SAF via the two projects.

我們正透過這兩個計畫推進我們的 SAF。

The first one is with ITER Fuels, which we are using waste gas to convert into SAF.

第一個是與 ITER Fuels 合作，我們利用廢棄氣體轉化為 SAF。

And in parallel, we have another project with Keppel where we are studying the viability of building an ethanol-to-jet plant on Jurong Island.

同時，我們還有另一個與 Keppel 的計畫，正在研究在裕廊島建造乙醇轉噴射燃料廠的可行性。

So for both of the projects, we are taking a different approach on the feedstock.

所以這兩個計畫，我們在原料上採取了不同的方法。

The other part of the difference is the technology pathway.

另一項不同之處在於技術路徑。

So both projects, if materialized, it will be the first of the kind in Asia.

所以這兩個計畫，如果實現的話，將是亞洲同類型的首例。

The mandates are tightening, investment is moving, and the first plants are running.

法規越來越嚴格，投資也到位了，第一批工廠也開始運作了。

The only question is whether the world can scale sustainable fuels fast enough to make a difference.

現在只剩下一個問題，就是世界能不能夠快速地擴大永續燃料的規模，來真正帶來改變。

字幕列表影片播放

全球都在瘋搶航空燃油？✈️ 到底發生了什麼事！ (Why the World is Running Out of the Fuel Airlines Need Most)

equivalent

approach

scale

tackle