The defence sector might drive e-fuels just as it drove solar

In our conversation, Dirk Singer made a point that one of the biggest investors in e-fuels isn’t an airline or an energy company — it’s the military.

“Armed forces are very interested in e-fuels… The US military is one of the biggest investors, not for environmental reasons, but for energy security and operational resilience.”

It makes perfect sense. Moving fuel is one of the most dangerous and expensive operations in any conflict. Solar panels, batteries, and, with creative application of insulation foam, were already used by the US Army in the early 1990s to improve energy efficiency at field bases. What began as a tactical solution later became a civilian standard.

The military has always been the earliest adopter of promising new technologies. If we stick to Clayton Christensen’s definition of disruption, every successful disruptive technology starts in a highly specialised, niche market before going mainstream. Defence is exactly that kind of market.

The same pattern might now repeat with e-fuels and modular energy systems. Producing synthetic fuel on-site — from captured CO₂ and green hydrogen — could save convoys, lives, and logistics headaches.

What bothers me is that for this approach to e-fuels to work, we are using the least energy-efficient methods: first, capturing CO2, which takes a ton of energy; second, making hydrogen, which is not known for high efficiency; and third, spending even more energy to make e-fuel! For this work, a military base should be located close to a nuclear power plant or a hydropower dam.

For more insights into the future of sustainable aviation, watch my interview with Dirk Singer here.