Shell Pulls Plug On Rotterdam Biofuels Plant
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on The Times.
This is the sub-heading.
Retreat from green energy continues as facility that was earmarked to produce sustainable aviation fuel and renewable diesel will not now be built
These first three paragraphs add some details.
Shell has scrapped construction of one of Europe’s biggest biofuels plants as it continues its retreat from green energy
The move by the FTSE 100 oil and gas group represents a further setback for efforts to cut aviation emissions.
Shell said it would not restart construction of the biofuels facility at its Rotterdam energy and chemicals plant, which was due to produce sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and renewable diesel.
When I wrote Centrica Secures Investment Stake In Gasrec Helping Boost UK Bio-LNG Ambitions, I took a look at the use of liquified natural gas (LNG) in transport.
This paragraph from the Centrica press release about the stake, gives the thoughts of Chris O’Shea, who is Group Chief Executive, Centrica.
Chris O’Shea, Group Chief Executive, Centrica plc, said: “Demand for bio-LNG for transport is growing fast as more HGV operators make the switch – drawn by a clean, ready-to-use fuel which slashes CO2 emissions by up to 85 per cent in comparison to diesel*. This investment in Gasrec enhances our collaboration with the leading company in the sector, and puts us in a strong position to energise a vital sector of the industry on its journey to net zero.”
Chris O’Shea of Centrica appears to feel that bio-LNG is a good alternative to diesel, so have Shell come to a similar decision, about satisfying the demand for diesel?
I asked Google AI if LNG has advantages over diesel as a truck fuel and received this answer.
Yes, LNG offers advantages over diesel, including significantly lower emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), and particulate matter (PM), which improves local air quality. It can also be more economically efficient, with fuel costs potentially lower than diesel depending on market conditions. However, the overall greenhouse gas (GHG) benefits are mixed; while LNG has a lower carbon content, it can result in higher lifecycle GHG emissions due to energy losses in its production and transport, as well as methane slip.
Note.
- If it drops emissions by up to 85 percent for bio-LNG, surely, it would do the same for LNG.
- I also think with tight regulations, the use of LNG could improve air quality in cities like London.
- LNG would probably be a more affordable fuel than hydrogen.
It should also be noted, that several major diesel engine makers, now make families of engines, which can handle, diesel, hydrogen and natural gas.
LNG would also be a convenient stepping stone between current fuels and hydrogen, that might give a few extra years for the transition.
Could LNG Be Used In Aircraft?
Consider.
- LNG would certainly give some reduction in carbon emissions.
- Handling LNG in aircraft could have similar problems to hydrogen, so companies like Airbus might have already solved them.
- In addition, LNG doesn’t have the fearsome reputation, that hydrogen seems to have gained because of the Hindenburg.
- It would be easier to provide LNG fuel at airports all round the world.
- Airbus have said availability of hydrogen at airports, could be a problem.
Out of curiosity, I asked Google AI if LNG could be used to power an airliner and received this answer.
Yes, liquefied natural gas (LNG) can theoretically be used to power airliners, offering a potential reduction in CO2 emissions compared to conventional jet fuel, but significant challenges exist. These challenges include the need for entirely new, larger, and heavier cryogenic fuel tanks, modifications to aircraft engines and fuel systems, and the development of a new global infrastructure for LNG supply. While experimental tests have been conducted, such as on the Soviet Union’s Tupolev Tu-155 in 1989, LNG is not currently in normal service due to these practical and infrastructural hurdles.
I would prefer it was a purpose-designed Airbus, than a Soviet-era Tupolev.
The Anonymous Widower 
There is a huge potential to produce LNG using separated and liquified biogas from food, agricultural and vegetation wastes.
Anaerobic digestion also produces slow release fertiliser, so the increase in plant growth can capture more carbon than is emitted during LNG production and use.
A locally produced zero carbon fuel!
Comment by Christopher | September 5, 2025 |
I know of tomato growers, who heat large greenhouses with natural gas and feed the carbon dioxide to the tomatoes, so the overall process is zero-carbon. We will be seeing more processes like that.
Centrica have also backed HiiROC, who efficiently split any hydrocarbon gas into hydrogen and carbon black, which has uses in the manufacture of tyres and agriculture.
I also believe, that one of the reasons Centrica took a 15% stake in Sizewell C, is that they get an equal stake in the electricity.
East Anglia has a lot of houses and industrial premises, that are heated by propane. If you had a Grade I Listed manor House, it would be easier to decarbonise it, by swapping from propane to hydrogen, than rebuilding it for heat pumps.
I read Centrica’s press releases regularly, as I believe they have a comprehensive plan to decarbonise a lot of the UK.
I have already spotted, that they are going into LNG bunkering and I think they may be going into LNG as road fuel for trucks, as it cuts emissions by 85 %.
Comment by AnonW | September 5, 2025 |