Swedish firm Liquid Wind is developing four e-methanol projects in Sweden and two in Finland, each with a capacity of 100,000 t/yr. The firm plans to sell these projects to other companies, even as the renewable fuel sector faces up to shifting market conditions and policy uncertainty. Argus spoke to chief executive and founder Claes Fredriksson about Liquid Wind's project pipeline, business strategy, plant design and policy views. Edited highlights follow:
Is your aim still to develop 10 e-methanol sites by 2030? What is your strategy?
Yes, our goal is still to have 10 projects reach final investment decision (FID) by 2030. We currently have six projects in development and a few potential additions, but our priority is advancing the most mature sites and getting the first plants built. Once the next few FIDs are reached, we can accelerate work on additional locations. Our model is to develop and sell projects while retaining 10–50pc ownership where possible. We fully control development — selecting technology partners, engineering firms, power suppliers and offtakers — and buyers can decide whether to make changes before FID. The exception is NorthStarH2 in Ostersund, where Uniper owns the project and we act as developer. The other five projects are developed and owned by us until sale.
Which firms do you work with? What are the key integration challenges?
We've worked with the same partners from the start on plant design — Siemens Energy for electrolysers and automation, Topsoe for methanol synthesis, Carbon Clean for carbon capture, Samsung E&A for engineering and construction, and Alfa Laval for heat exchangers and energy optimisation. Standardised, modular 100,000 t/yr facilities are central to our strategy. Once the first design was complete, we were able to cut early-stage engineering costs and shorten execution times for later projects, and we are already seeing those gains. We continually work with our partners to optimise methanol production costs. We won't use hydrogen storage, as hydrogen will flow directly into methanol synthesis. Electricity will come from the grid, with electrolyser load adjusted based on power prices, since electrolysers respond quickly. Methanol synthesis is slower, so it requires process looping. CO2 capture is also flexible — we can capture as much as needed.
How do you select sites, plan to source CO2 and manage power price volatility?
A 100,000 t/yr facility needs 150,000–160,000 t/yr of stable, biogenic CO2. Some CO2 seasonality is acceptable as long as monthly minimums are met. The capture systems also require steam to release CO2, which we aim to source from the same host facility. Suitable hosts include biomass-based heat and power plants, waste-to-energy plants with high biogenic shares, ethanol plants and some pulp and paper mills. Our plants will fully comply with EU RFNBO power sourcing rules such as temporal correlation. Using CO2 from cement plants is technically feasible, but does not align with RFNBO criteria. We develop power-sourcing strategies with buyers, depending on their preferences — forward contracts, PPAs or spot exposure are all options. Price flexibility can be beneficial, given currently low spot prices in northern Sweden because of excess generation capacity and delayed consumption projects.
Why return to Ornskoldsvik after you sold the FlagshipOne project to Orsted and it cancelled? What is the status of the projects in Sundsvall and Umea?
The Ornskoldsvik site is one of the strongest locations in Sweden and Europe, offering ample CO2 and steam from Ovik Energi, port access and strong community support. When Orsted changed direction, we quickly returned, expanded the design from 50,000 t/yr to 100,000 t/yr, secured additional land and adapted the layout to the site. In Sundsvall, we have an environmental permit and a long-standing partnership with Sundsvall Energi for CO2 and steam. We paused while they reviewed options to expand steam supply, but with those decisions now made, we are moving at full speed towards FID readiness by end-2026. In Umea, the project is FID-ready and prepared for sale. We are negotiating with potential buyers now, and once a deal is done, the buyers — or we together with them — can take it to FID. Our goal is to achieve this in 2026.
What about the Finnish projects in Haapavesi and Naantali?
Haapavesi depends on our partner [NordFuel]. Their planned ethanol facility would provide us with pure CO2. It is not built yet — they made progress late last year, so we expect movement soon, but cannot give timelines. Naantali is an attractive location because of high heating demand, but it is seasonal as the heat is for residential areas. We are assessing whether the steam and CO2 seasonality can be managed before proceeding.
What policy gaps remain in Sweden, Finland and the EU?
Sweden's early funding favoured carbon sequestration, but there is strong carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) potential, given low power prices and abundant biogenic CO2, and government awareness of this is growing. The results of two government-led CCU investigations are due in 1Q and 2Q, and we hope they lead to support, such as contracts-for-difference or production subsidies. Sweden's previous biogas support is a good model for scaling e-fuels. We encouraged the government to join the e-SAF Early Movers' Coalition, but it did not, probably because of other — political — priorities. The recent focus on power infrastructure has slowed progress on CO2 reduction. Sweden now needs its own e-SAF support to avoid falling behind. Finland offers long-term tax exemptions, which help, but are not enough. Developers still need upfront capital support to secure offtake and reach FID. Local firms are more active in securing regional funds there, but this is less visible for us. FuelEU Maritime and ReFuelEU Aviation will create e-fuel demand, but timing is critical. We need demand-side mechanisms and upfront funding today to close the cost gap with fossil methanol, as offtakers are not yet willing to pay premiums. By 2030, penalties, mandates and falling costs should allow green premiums to be absorbed, but near-term support is essential.
Which sectors are you targeting? Do you have plans for e-SAF production?
Shipping and e-SAF remain the main drivers of e-methanol demand. Interest in methanol-capable vessels is growing — Maersk already has 19 — but shipping firms remain wary of green premiums, making penalties and mandates essential. The lack of urgency at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) is unhelpful, especially for companies outside Europe that depend on such global rules. The impact of IMO's delay is limited for us. We are placing slightly more focus on e-SAF, where interest is strong and mandates arrive sooner, but the EU needs to stick to its decisions. We may see a quick rise in e-SAF FIDs, though likely not in 2026. 2027 could be the big-game year for FIDs and construction starts, as many plants must be built ahead of the 2030 mandates. Large e-SAF projects may not be viable yet, so we may first see smaller 30,000–40,000 t/yr pilot plants. E-SAF production is far more complex than e-methanol, so we are not planning to build e-SAF plants ourselves, though we are open to co-location with methanol-to-jet facilities. If we were to co-develop anything, it would be renewable generation paired with e-methanol production in markets with strong renewable resources.
