Open letter to the governments of Europe
350,000 jobs · €9 billion annual turnover · energy independence — without one euro cent of subsidy
- Sender
- Jacobus van Merksteijn — Carbon-Alert Ltd, Palma
- Date
- 20 June 2026
- Addressed to
- European Commission · member-state governments · parliaments
- Subject
- Immediate rollout of bio-ethanol + SOFC as a self-supporting alternative
- Method
- All amounts without subsidy, ETS credit or feed-in tariff
To the heads of government, ministers, parliamentarians and policymakers of Europe,
With this letter I put one question to you. A question Europe has been circling for years. A question that, in 2026, can no longer wait.
Why don't we begin today, at large scale, with Carbon-Alert BiCRS combined with ethanol-SOFC?
We have the unemployment. We have the infrastructure. We have the technology. We have the learning curve. We have the feedstock. We have the factories that can convert to solar panels and wind turbines.
What is missing is not money. What is missing is a political decision that does not lean on subsidies, but on market figures already on the table.
What exactly is on the table
| Indicator | Value | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Ethanol real price 2026 | €0.55/L | Market price without SDE++ or RED bonus |
| Ethanol real price 2036 | €0.30/L | Cellulose-route learning curve, documented |
| Carbon-Alert SOFC LCOE 2036 | 9.97 c€/kWh | 54% cheaper than the Spanish grid (21.5 c€) |
| Hub investment 100 kW | €180,000 | Payback ≈ 3 years without any support |
| Employment potential | 350,000 jobs | Pellet chain, distilleries, SOFC manufacture, assembly |
| Turnover at 50 GW rollout | €9 billion/year | Direct, excluding BECCS CO₂ marketing |
| CO₂ impact | Net-negative | BECCS removes 70–80 kg CO₂/MWhₑ |
| Policy risk | Zero | No subsidy needed → no subsidy dependence |
Europe has everything it needs — today
1. Unemployed people waiting for meaningful work
Spain has 2.6 million unemployed. Italy 2.0 million. France 2.4 million. Germany 2.8 million. The Netherlands 380,000. A large share have technical training or are practically skilled.
The Carbon-Alert chain needs personnel at exactly those levels: pellet production, distillation operation, SOFC installation, maintenance teams, BECCS CO₂ logistics. Permanent, non-outsourceable jobs. Spread across all regions. No Silicon Valley elite work — industrial labour Europe is good at.
2. The infrastructure is already there
- Filling stations: 120,000 in Europe, mechanically identical for petrol, diesel and ethanol — only the label changes
- Distilleries: already present in every grain, beet and wine region
- Pellet factories: 1,200+ EU plants that can supply cellulose feedstock directly
- Gas pipeline network: 70,000 km existing, usable for regional ethanol distribution or biogas co-transport
- Vacant industrial sites: former coal, refinery and automotive sites — direct locations for BiCRS+SOFC hubs
3. The technology is proven
No prototype, no proof of concept, no "still needs to scale". Nissan has been running a 70-percent-efficiency ethanol SOFC at trial scale in Tochigi since 2026. Ceres Power is delivering 50 MW of SOFC stacks to Doosan this year, plus the production licence to Weichai. IPEN/Nissan/VW/Stellantis have been collaborating on an ethanol fuel-cell platform since 2017. Lawrence Berkeley proves that an HEA catalyst can work with 80 percent less precious metal. At the same time Bosch discontinued its SOFC arm and Stellantis stopped with hydrogen — not because the technology fails, but because they did not move fast enough.
Why Carbon-Alert asks for no subsidies
Every subsidised technology carries a political expiry date. SDE++ can pay €100 per tonne of CO₂ today, €50 tomorrow, nothing the day after. Business plans leaning on subsidy die when the regulation changes.
Carbon-Alert is deliberately designed to be profitable even without any subsidy — not because we reject support, but because we want to be independent of political whims.
The calculation — honest and complete
| Item | Amount | Note |
|---|---|---|
| CAPEX 100 kW hub (2036) | €180,000 | €1,800/kW × 100 kW |
| Annual electricity revenue (21.5 c€) | €172,000 | 800,000 kWh × 21.5 c€ |
| Annual heat revenue (CHP) | €18,000 | 20% utilisation |
| Fuel (108,000 L × €0.30) | −€32,400 | Real price without subsidy |
| OPEX + insurance | −€8,000 | 1.5% CAPEX |
| Amortisation + depreciation | −€90,000 | Linear 2 years effective |
| Net margin year 1 | €59,600 | Rises to €100,000+ from year 4 |
| Payback time | ≈ 3 years | Without subsidy, without credit |
| Optional: SDE++ BECCS bonus | +€70,000/year | Shortens payback to about 1 year |
Understand the difference. Without subsidy a hub earns itself back in 3 years. With SDE++ in 1 year. Both figures are solid. But the real story is that our technology stands on its own. That is the crucial message to every government: you don't need to give money — you only need to not stand in the way.
Why delay is irresponsible
The window closes within three to five years. Doosan is building 50 MW of SOFC capacity in Korea. Weichai is building a plant in China. Bloom Energy dominates the US. If Europe does not act now, all large-scale SOFC supply chains will be Asian or American within five years — and Europe will be stuck with the same mistake as with solar panels (China), batteries (Korea/China) and chips (Taiwan/US).
This is not a warning. It is a repetition we can this time prepare for.
What we are asking
Five decisions that cost no money and change everything
- Permit acceleration — for BiCRS plants and SOFC hubs within 6 months instead of 2 to 3 years.
- Ethanol filling-station standardisation — a European standard for E100 conversion of petrol pumps. Costs nothing. Works tomorrow.
- Policy neutrality — no EV monopoly in zero-emission classification. Ethanol-SOFC must count too.
- Education modules — vocational training in ethanol operations and SOFC maintenance at 500 regional education centres and vocational schools.
- Procurement priority — public buildings, hospitals, data centres may choose Carbon-Alert hubs without a formal technology-neutrality block.
None of these measures costs the treasury anything. They only clear away the political undergrowth blocking healthy market development today.
The hidden bill of the current path
Whoever chooses the battery EV and the green hydrogen strategy implicitly chooses enormous externalities not yet on the price tag, but which will have to be paid later.
| Hidden cost | Amount | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Lithium salt-pan cleanup (Atacama, Bolivia) | €40–€75/tonne extracted | Water pollution, indigenous rights |
| Cobalt mining cleanup Congo | €20–€50/tonne extracted | Child labour, mining-disaster risk |
| Rare-earth cleanup China | €80–€120/tonne extracted | Radioactive tailings Bayan Obo |
| Battery recycling mass EV phase-out | €2,000–€5,000/vehicle | 40% recovery is current EU target |
| Hydrogen pipeline retrofit | €15–€30 billion EU | Material embrittlement costs, leakage |
| Grid expansion for 100% electrification | €500–€700 billion EU | EU grid investment plan 2026–2040 |
Carbon-Alert has none of these externalities. The pellets come from forestry and agricultural residual flows. The CO₂ is recaptured (BECCS net-negative). The infrastructure exists. The jobs arise in regions where unemployment is highest. And the price per kWh, per km, per MWh adds up — without the taxpayer stepping in.
Finally — a personal word
I am not a lobbyist and not a consultant. I am an inventor, entrepreneur and publisher. For years I have worked on the technology, the patents and the economic models before you here. I am not asking for money. I am asking for attention, room and speed.
It is naïve to think a European government in 2026–2027 still has time for wrong technological choices. It is equally naïve to think the market will solve everything on its own — while bureaucracy and political preference slow the learning curve.
What I ask is a fair chance for a technology that stands on market figures, not on subsidies — a technology that works, is affordable, produces jobs, removes CO₂ and makes Europe more independent.
Start today. Not with money — but with the willingness to give Carbon-Alert room.
In three years the market will name the winner. It is up to you to determine whether that is Europe — or another continent that acted more sensibly.
With kind regards and in sincere expectation of your response,
Jacobus van Merksteijn
Founder & Lead Engineer · Carbon-Alert Ltd
Palma, Balearic Islands, Spain · openvizier.org
The triptych — three documents, one message
- 1. On the coach box or on the luggage rack — the directing article, the thesis
- 2. Vision 2036 — Carbon-Alert Energy Hub — the technical design
- 3. Open letter to the governments of Europe (you are reading this now)
