Bio-LNG (liquefied biomethane) produced from manure and other wastes is one of the few transport fuels that can credibly claim carbon-negative potential under current greenhouse gas accounting rules. By capturing methane that would otherwise escape to the atmosphere and using it to replace fossil LNG or diesel in heavy trucks and ships, bio-LNG projects can deliver large CO₂e reductions per unit of energy. At the same time, the sector is constrained by feedstock availability, project complexity, and competition from other biomethane uses such as grid injection and industrial heat. At Energy Solutions, we benchmark manure-based bio-LNG pathways against diesel, fossil LNG, and other low-carbon fuels for heavy-duty transport.
Bio-LNG is produced by upgrading biogas (mostly CH₄ and CO₂) from anaerobic digestion to biomethane and then liquefying it at approximately -162 °C. When manure is the primary feedstock, the process can qualify for strong methane avoidance credits, because unmanaged manure lagoons emit large quantities of methane with a high global warming potential.
A simplified manure-to-bio-LNG chain includes:
Energy Solutions benchmarks use lifecycle assessment studies, disclosed project data, and internal models. Emissions are expressed on a well-to-wheel basis for heavy-duty trucks, with and without manure methane avoidance credits, to illustrate the sensitivity of results to accounting choices.
The climate case for bio-LNG rests on two pillars: methane avoidance and displacement of fossil fuels. The table below summarises stylised emissions and cost benchmarks for heavy-duty trucking applications.
| Fuel Pathway | GHG Intensity (kg CO₂e/km) | Fuel Cost (Index, Diesel = 1) | Key Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diesel | ~0.9–1.0 | 1.0 | Typical European heavy truck, mixed duty cycle. |
| Fossil LNG | ~0.8–0.95 (including methane slip) | 0.9–1.1 | LNG engine with moderate methane slip controls. |
| Bio-LNG (manure-based, with avoidance credits) | -0.4–0.0 | 1.3–1.8 | Strong methane avoidance credit; efficient AD and liquefaction. |
| Bio-LNG (waste-based, without avoidance credits) | 0.1–0.3 | 1.2–1.6 | Organic wastes and residues; no manure-specific credit. |
Source: Energy Solutions modelling; results depend heavily on methane accounting and plant performance.
Source: Energy Solutions cost benchmarks; excludes road tolls and vehicle capex.
| Region | Potential Biomethane from Manure (TWh/year) | Equivalent Heavy Truck Energy Demand Coverage | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| European Union | 150–250 | ~10–20% of current heavy truck diesel use | High livestock density in some member states; strong sustainability rules. |
| United States & Canada | 120–220 | ~8–15% of regional heavy truck demand | Large dairy and feedlot operations; LCFS-type policies important. |
| Global total (order-of-magnitude) | 400–700 | ~5–10% of global heavy truck and shipping energy demand | Subject to competing uses and sustainability constraints. |
Policy frameworks such as the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED II/III), California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), and national biomethane incentives strongly influence project viability. High credit values for manure-based pathways can offset higher production costs, while clear rules on double counting and sustainability determine whether bio-LNG is treated as a premium, carbon-negative option or simply one low-carbon fuel among many.
One advantage of bio-LNG is its compatibility with existing LNG logistics and engines. However, the front-end production infrastructure is capital-intensive and operationally complex.
| Element | Illustrative Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Manure intake | 50–200 kt/year | From regional farms within 30–80 km radius. |
| Bio-LNG output | 10–50 kt/year | Sufficient to fuel several hundred heavy trucks. |
| Plant capex (order-of-magnitude) | 50–200 million EUR | AD, upgrading, liquefaction, storage, and logistics. |
Source: Energy Solutions modelling; relative shares for feedstock, AD/upgrading, liquefaction, logistics.
The strongest criticism of manure-based bio-LNG is that it may be over-sold as a scalable solution. Global manure and organic waste resources are finite, and many are already targeted for biogas, compost, or soil health applications. Large-scale diversion into fuel may face opposition from agriculture and waste management stakeholders.
There is also policy and accounting risk. If methane avoidance credits are tightened or double counting is restricted, many projects could see their claimed carbon negativity disappear, undermining premium prices and policy support. Fleet operators should treat manure-based bio-LNG as a high-impact niche, not a silver bullet, and avoid over-reliance in long-term strategies.
By 2030, most credible scenarios see bio-LNG supplying a minor but valuable share of heavy-duty energy demand, concentrated in regions with strong biogas industries and LNG vehicle fleets. By 2035, bio-LNG could play a durable role in regional freight and short-sea shipping, especially where existing LNG infrastructure would otherwise be stranded.
| Scenario (2035) | Diesel & Fossil LNG (%) | Bio-LNG (%) | Battery-Electric (%) | Hydrogen & Other Fuels (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | 65–75 | 3–6 | 10–20 | 5–15 |
| Base case | 50–60 | 7–12 | 20–30 | 10–20 |
| Aggressive bio-LNG | 40–50 | 12–18 | 20–30 | 10–20 |
Source: Energy Solutions heavy-duty decarbonisation scenarios; shares expressed in energy terms.
Under many current lifecycle assessment frameworks, manure-based bio-LNG can be counted as carbon negative because it avoids methane emissions that would have occurred from unmanaged manure storage. However, this depends on baseline assumptions about current manure management and may change as accounting rules evolve.
Estimates vary, but most studies suggest that biomethane from wastes and residues could cover only a modest fraction of global transport energy demand. Bio-LNG is therefore best viewed as a targeted solution for specific regions and fleets, not a universal replacement for diesel.
Yes. Manure and organic wastes can also be used for biogas-to-grid, on-site heat and power, or soil-improvement products. Project developers and policymakers must balance climate, air quality, and soil health objectives when deciding where biomethane delivers the most value.