Landfills are a major source of methane emissions 鈥� the third-largest in the US after the agriculture and energy sectors. But by implementing practical, cost-effective measures, total landfill methane emissions can be halved while providing new revenue for operators, according to a聽report released by the NGO Energy Vision, 鈥淟eading with Landfills: The Immense, Cost-Effective Potential of Advanced Technology to Reduce Methane Emissions at Landfills Nationwide.鈥�
The report models the impact and cost of the top three 鈥渁dvanced landfill tech鈥� options: adding聽real-time monitoring and automated tuning equipment to landfill gas collection and control systems (GCCS); early action to install GCCS at working faces where methane emissions are often highest; and installing new GCCS at high-emitting landfills that don鈥檛 yet have them.聽The report finds that these options are feasible for nearly聽900 municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills nationwide, yet only a fraction of those landfills are implementing them.
Assuming that changes, and the nearly 900 candidates adopt advanced landfill tech, the report projects it would cut US MSW landfill emissions by 49% and total US methane emissions by 7.2% (49.4 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent or CO2e), at an estimated cost of $8.35 per metric ton of CO2e abated. Including the 鈥渟tretch goal鈥� of installing GCCS at another roughly 140 landfills that aren鈥檛 as economically viable under current market conditions would deepen the cuts to 59% of MSW landfill emissions and 8.6% of total US methane (59.2 MT CO2e), at an estimated cost of $9.58 per MT of CO2e abated.
For comparison, advanced landfill tech costs about half as much per MT of GHG reduction as plugging methane leaks in low-output oil and gas 鈥渟tripper wells,鈥� which could potentially cut US methane emissions 10.7% at a cost of about $19/MT CO2e. Other GHG reduction approaches are much more expensive. For example, switching from fossil fuels to renewables like wind and solar costs on average $65 / MT CO2e, and cost estimates for direct air capture of CO2 average around $800/MT CO2e.
While advanced landfill tech is not proposed as a substitute for these other GHG mitigation approaches, it鈥檚 an additional, uniquely cost-effective solution for mitigating a major source of methane emissions that has long gone under-addressed. It not only costs much less per MT of GHG reduction than most other climate strategies, it pays for itself rapidly and yields a robust return on investment, the Energy Vision report found.
Depending on which landfills adopt the measures, the report calculates that the total investment required to realize advanced landfill tech鈥檚 potential to cut US methane emissions 7.2-8.6% would be between $1.3 and $1.8 billion in initial capital costs, plus $250 to $340 million a year in operating costs. Assuming virtually all the additional captured gas is converted to renewable natural gas (RNG) and sold as fuel rather than used to generate electricity, landfills adopting this tech could produce 93 million MMBTU of RNG each year, boosting the current national supply by nearly 70%. Selling this RNG would enable operators to recoup their initial investment within a year of advanced landfill tech equipment coming online, and cumulatively generate additional聽gross revenue of $1.86 billion a year thereafter.
This makes the business case and the practical outlook for advanced landfill tech extremely positive, even as some other forms of GHG reduction are losing policy support and getting scaled back. As it happens, the FY26 federal budget should help incentivize advanced landfill tech, because it extends the聽45Z Clean Fuel Production tax credit, which applies to RNG made from landfill methane, through 2029. State policies like Colorado鈥檚 proposed landfill methane reduction plan 鈥� the most ambitious in the country 鈥� and California鈥檚 Low Carbon Fuel Standard effectively encourage adoption of advanced landfill tech and landfill RNG production, offering models that other states could adopt.
The Energy Vision report considers how future policies could accelerate deployment of advanced landfill tech and landfill-derived RNG, such as tighter regulations of landfill emissions, direct subsidies, and expanding incentives for beneficial use of landfill gas. It also notes that implementing this advanced tech does not depend on continuing to landfill food waste or conflict with the goal of diverting food away from landfills, since non-food organic waste streams are so large and generate large quantities of methane. In fact, the report鈥檚 analysis shows both strategies can and should be pursued simultaneously.
鈥淭his report offers the first real, quantitative assessment of the costs and impacts of advanced landfill tech, and the results are surprising,鈥� said Michael Lerner, Energy Vision鈥檚 Director of Research and Publications, who authored the report. 鈥淭hey show that just with the current economics and incentives, the business case for this approach is remarkably compelling, and emerging state policies could make it even stronger. At a time when funding and policy support for some forms of clean energy and other GHG reduction approaches are getting rolled back, advanced landfill tech is poised to roll forward. It makes sense not only as a cost-effective way to cut US methane emissions deeply; but also as a smart investment landfills can make to generate additional revenue.鈥�