Landfill Gas Recovery: RNG Pipeline Injection Economics

Landfill gas (LFG) sits awkwardly between legacy waste practice and low-carbon gas opportunity. Hundreds of sites already flare or use LFG for on-site power, but only a fraction upgrade it to pipeline-quality RNG. This brief unpacks when it makes economic sense to move from flaring or power-only to full RNG pipeline injection, and how that answer shifts between the US, Europe and emerging markets.

What You'll Learn

1. Landfill Gas Basics & Decline Curves

LFG is produced as organic waste decomposes under anaerobic conditions. Its flow profile is governed by waste age, moisture, cover practices and gas collection efficiency:

Illustrative Landfill Gas Flow Over Time

Typical indexed LFG flow for an active + then closed landfill cell over 25 years (collection-adjusted).

2. Project Archetypes: Flaring, Power-Only, RNG

From a commercial standpoint, three practical archetypes dominate:

Simplified Landfill Gas Utilisation Archetypes

Archetype Configuration Main Revenue Source Typical LCOG / Value Comments
Compliance flare Collection + enclosed flare None (cost centre, avoids penalties) - Lowest capex, but no energy or RNG revenue.
Power-only Engines/turbines + grid export Electricity sales + sometimes green certificates Value ˜ 30–45 €/MWh (electric) Exposed to power prices and engine downtime.
RNG pipeline injection Upgrading + compression + pipeline tie-in RNG sales + credits (LCFS/RIN/GO etc.) LCOG ˜ 40–70 €/MWh (gas) depending on credits Highest capex and complexity, but can capture strong premiums.

Many portfolios now benchmark LFG-to-RNG projects directly against anaerobic digestion-based biomethane plants, dedicated biogas upgrading investments, and the wider set of waste pathways summarised in the bio-economy & waste-to-X overview.

Indicative Value Capture by Utilisation Route

Illustrative comparison of value captured from the same LFG stream via flaring, power-only, or RNG.

3. Economics: Capex, Opex & LCOG

The move from power-only to RNG hinges on three economic questions:

Indicative Economics – Mid-Sized Landfill (US/Europe, 2025–2026)

Metric Power-Only Project RNG Project
Capex (utilisation island only) ~ €8–12 million ~ €18–25 million
Specific opex Moderate (engine O&M, parasitic load) Higher (upgrading O&M, pipeline fees, monitoring)
Revenue stack Electricity + possibly GOs Base gas value + certificates/credits + sometimes manure/CI premiums
Equity IRR (illustrative) 9–11% 12–18% (in strong credit markets)

IRR Sensitivity to RNG Price (Illustrative)

Indicative equity IRR for an RNG project across a range of realised RNG prices, compared to a power-only baseline.

4. Pipeline Specs & Upgrading Chain

To inject RNG into a gas grid, LFG must pass through several processing stages:

The distance to pipeline and the need for pressure boosting can make or break a project. In some cases, virtual pipeline (trucked CNG) strategies can sidestep long, expensive grid connections.

5. Regional Economics: US vs EU vs Emerging

Not all LFG-to-RNG projects look alike from a regional perspective:

Regional RNG Project Archetypes from Landfills

Region Key Revenue Drivers Typical Route Comments
US (RIN/LCFS-heavy) RINs, LCFS credits, base gas value RNG into CNG/LNG transport or grid Strong economics for high-CI reduction projects; policy risk on credit prices.
NW Europe Feed-in tariffs/premiums, GOs, sometimes landfill gas mandates RNG to grid or combined with CHP + grid injection Moderate margins; emphasis on compliance and landfill phase-down.
Emerging markets Power tariffs, occasional climate finance Power-only or flare + small power Limited RNG infrastructure; credit stacking often requires international mechanisms.

Regional RNG Revenue Stack vs LCOG

Illustrative comparison of total RNG revenue and levelised cost of gas (LCOG) from LFG projects in different regions.

6. Devil's Advocate: Risks & Failure Modes

Despite strong headlines, not every LFG-to-RNG project reaches investment committee approval:

From a financiers perspective, the "perfect" LFG-to-RNG project is one where gas potential is proven, collection efficiency is demonstrably high, and revenue is diversified across base gas value and multiple credit sources.

7. Outlook to 2030: Role of LFG in RNG Supply

Looking towards 2030, we see LFG-to-RNG as a bridge resource rather than the ultimate backbone of RNG supply:

In most portfolios, LFG-derived RNG will be one of several pillars alongside agricultural AD, industrial biogas, and synthetic fuels, rather than the sole growth engine.

Frequently Asked Questions

When does RNG make more sense than power-only from landfill gas?

RNG usually makes more sense when the project can access strong credit schemes (LCFS, RINs, CI-based premiums), when there is a reasonable distance to a suitable pipeline, and when LFG flow is sufficient to utilise upgrading assets for at least 10–15 years.

How important is accurate LFG measurement before investing?

Extremely important. Many underperforming projects started from optimistic model-based estimates without a robust measurement campaign. Banks and infrastructure investors increasingly require multi-season flow and quality data before committing capital.

Will tightening landfill regulations kill the LFG-to-RNG opportunity?

Over the very long term, less organic waste should end up in landfills, reducing LFG potential. In the next 10–20 years, however, existing landfills will continue to emit methane. Capturing and upgrading that gas remains a compelling mitigation and revenue opportunity if structured correctly.

Related Articles

Turning Waste into Gold: Bio-Economy & Waste-to-X

Strategic overview of high-growth waste-to-X markets in Europe and Asia.

Read Bio-Economy Overview

Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Market Outlook

How agricultural vs municipal feedstocks change AD project risk and returns.

Read AD Market Brief

WtE Incineration: Flue Gas & Standards 2026

How tightening air emission limits reshape WtE plant design and economics.

Read WtE Brief