Open letter to the governments of Europe
350,000 jobs · €9 billion annual revenue · energy independence — without a single 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-sustaining alternative
- Method
- All figures 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 start today, at scale, with Carbon-Alert BiCRS combined with ethanol-SOFC?
We have the unemployed. We have the infrastructure. We have the technology. We have the learning curve. We have the feedstock. We have the factories that can retool from 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 that are already on the table.
What exactly is on the table
| Indicator | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Ethanol market price 2026 | €0.55/L | Market price without SDE++ or RED bonus |
| Ethanol market price 2036 | €0.30/L | Learning curve cellulose route, documented |
| Carbon-Alert SOFC LCOE 2036 | 9.97 c€/kWh | 54% cheaper than Spanish grid (21.5 c€) |
| Hub investment 100 kW | €180,000 | Payback period ≈ 3 years without any support |
| Employment potential | 350,000 jobs | Pellet chain, distilleries, SOFC manufacturing, assembly |
| Revenue at 50 GW rollout | €9 billion/year | Direct, excl. BECCS-CO₂ monetisation |
| CO₂ impact | Net-negative | BECCS removes 70–80 kg CO₂/MWhₑ |
| Policy risk | Zero | No subsidy needed → no subsidy dependency |
Europe has everything needed — today
1. The unemployed are waiting for meaningful work
Spain counts 2.6 million unemployed. Italy 2.0 million. France 2.4 million. Germany 2.8 million. The Netherlands 380,000. A large share of them have technical training or practical qualifications.
The Carbon-Alert chain needs people at exactly those levels: pellet production, distillation operations, SOFC installation, maintenance teams, BECCS-CO₂ logistics. Permanent, non-outsourceable jobs. Spread across every region. Not Silicon Valley elite work — industrial labour at which Europe excels.
2. The infrastructure is already in place
- Filling stations: 120,000 across 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 immediately
- Gas pipeline network: 70,000 km existing, usable for regional ethanol distribution or biogas co-transport
- Empty industrial sites: former coal, refinery and automotive locations — ready sites for BiCRS+SOFC hubs
3. The technology is proven
No prototype, no proof-of-concept, no "needs to scale up". Nissan has been running a 70-percent-efficiency ethanol-SOFC in Tochigi at trial scale since 2026. Ceres Power is delivering 50 MW 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 shows that an HEA catalyst can work with 80 percent less precious metal. Meanwhile Bosch shut down its SOFC division and Stellantis dropped 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 that rest on subsidies collapse when the rules change.
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 | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | Market 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 period | ≈ 3 years | Without subsidy, without credit |
| Optional: SDE++ BECCS bonus | +€70,000/year | Reduces payback period to approx. 1 year |
Understand the difference. Without subsidy a hub pays itself back in 3 years. With SDE++ in 1 year. Both figures are solid. But the real point is that our technology stands on its own. That is the crucial message to every government: you do not need to give money — you only need to stay out of 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 factory 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 locked into the same mistake it made with solar panels (China), batteries (Korea/China) and chips (Taiwan/US).
This is not a warning. This is a repetition we can prepare for this time.
What we request
Five decisions that cost nothing 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 technical colleges and vocational schools.
- Procurement preference — public buildings, hospitals and data centres may choose Carbon-Alert hubs without a formal technology-neutrality blockade.
None of these measures costs the treasury anything. They simply clear the political undergrowth that is blocking healthy market development today.
The hidden bill of the current path
Choosing battery-EV and green-hydrogen strategy means implicitly choosing enormous externalities that do not yet appear on the price tag but will have to be paid later.
| Hidden cost | Amount | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Lithium salt-flat cleanup (Atacama, Bolivia) | €40–€75/tonne extracted | Water pollution, indigenous rights |
| Cobalt mining cleanup Congo | €20–€50/tonne extracted | Child labour, mine-accident 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 retrofitting | €15–€30 billion EU | Material brittleness, 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 residues. The CO₂ is captured back (BECCS net-negative). The infrastructure is there. The jobs arise in regions where unemployment is highest. And the price per kWh, per km, per MWh holds — without the taxpayer stepping in.
In closing — 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 that lie before you here. I am not asking for money. I am asking for attention, space and speed.
It is naive to think that a European government in 2026–2027 still has time for the wrong technological choices. It is equally naive to think the market will sort it all out by itself — while bureaucracy and political preference slow the learning curve.
What I ask for is a fair chance for a technology that rests on market figures, not on subsidies — a technology that works, is affordable, creates jobs, captures CO₂ and makes Europe more independent.
Start today. Not with money — but with the willingness to give Carbon-Alert space.
In three years the market will name the winner. It is up to you to decide whether that is Europe — or another continent that acted more wisely.
Yours sincerely, in earnest hope of your reply,
Jacobus van Merksteijn
Founder & Lead Engineer · Carbon-Alert Ltd
Palma, Balearic Islands, Spain · openvizier.org
The triptych — three documents, one message
- 1. On the box or the luggage rack — the leading 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)
