Port of Rotterdam: caught between fossil fuel reflexes and failing policy
The hype surrounding biofuels has been dispelled: even Shell now acknowledges that it is not a solution.
Published on September 23, 2025
Merien co-founded E52 in 2015 and envisioned AI in journalism, leading to Laio. He writes bold columns on hydrogen and mobility—often with a sharp edge.
The departure of Shell and BP from the port of Rotterdam comes as no surprise, but is the predictable outcome of a disastrous policy, writes Merien ten Houten in this opinion piece. For decades, Dutch politicians have taken a double, fatal gamble: they have outsourced the energy transition to the fossil fuel industry itself and bet on the technological mirage of biofuels. The result is a looming deindustrialization, in which the port is no longer the beating heart but threatens to become a museum of faded glory.
Shell and the myth of sustainable aviation fuel
The political obsession with biofuels as a quick fix for sustainability has been mercilessly debunked by the industry itself. The final nail in the coffin came from Shell CEO Wael Sawan, who openly admitted that Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) is not a serious alternative. According to Sawan, SAF currently accounts for less than 0.1% of total demand in aviation, and can only grow with strict, enforced mandates. This is not a sign of confidence; it is an admission that the business case simply does not exist without government coercion. Politicians have invested billions in a solution that the intended producer itself does not believe in. The withdrawal of Shell and BP is therefore a cold, business decision based on an irrefutable fact: the strategy is a failure.
Wrong choices, wrong partners
The root of the problem lies deeper than a wrong choice of technology. It is the fundamental misconception that innovation can come from the old, established order. An opinion piece by current CDA leader Henri Bontenbal from 2020 painfully exposes this naivety. He argued for close cooperation with Shell to shape the transition. This is like asking Kodak to invent the digital camera or giving a tobacco manufacturer the lead in an anti-smoking campaign. It is a strategic blunder of the first order. Despite all the green rhetoric, large fossil fuel companies are primarily focused on maximizing profits from their existing fossil fuel activities. Asking them to lead the transition is asking them to dismantle their own revenue model. It is a recipe for delays, half-hearted projects, and an eventual return to fossil fuel core activities as soon as the wind changes.
The illusion of a Dutch energy superpower
The crisis in the port forces us to ask an even more fundamental question: what battle is the Netherlands actually trying to fight? The port is not only an energy hub, but above all a global player in logistics, storage, transshipment, and general cargo. It is precisely this core function that is now threatened by a misguided energy policy. Should a densely populated country without its own oil, with limited space for sun and wind, really want to compete with regions that have an overwhelming natural advantage?
Countries in the Middle East have oil and sun. Spain has space and sun. Iceland has an abundance of geothermal and hydroelectric power. Competing with these countries in energy production is a battle that the Netherlands will lose from the outset. Politicians must stop pursuing this illusion and focus on what the Netherlands can excel at.
A radical change of course is inevitable. Policy should no longer focus on subsidizing failed projects by fossil fuel giants, but on strengthening our real assets: logistical efficiency, an advanced circular economy, and high-tech innovation. Only by making these tough, strategic choices can the port of Rotterdam maintain its relevance and avoid becoming a silent witness to a failed industrial past.
