The interesting thing about biomethane, compared to hydrogen,...

The interesting thing about biomethane, compared to hydrogen, hydro, and solar, is that it is one of the most cost-effective and immediately available renewable options. Despite this, it remains one of the least talked about.

If you need massive, continuous power, hydropower is the best choice, but upfront costs are enormous, and suitable locations are limited. Solar is scalable, but it requires large amounts of materials like silicon, rare earth metals, and batteries, making production and disposal more complex. Hydrogen gets a lot of hype but is still highly expensive and not yet commercially viable at scale.

Unlike these large-scale solutions, biomethane isn’t about replacing the entire energy grid, it’s about making use of existing waste to produce energy. Many assume natural gas = fossil fuels, overlooking that biomethane is renewable and the most carbon-negative energy option available here.

By capturing methane that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere from waste, biomethane not only reduces emissions but can actively remove carbon from the cycle, something solar, hydro, and hydrogen cannot do.

I think a key reason biomethane doesn’t get pushed as hard is that it competes directly with natural gas, which means oil and gas giants have little incentive to promote it. Instead, they focus on hydrogen, which still allows them to use fossil fuel infrastructure. The difference with biomethane is that it’s ready now and doesn’t require new breakthrough technology, it’s cost-competitive with natural gas, and it can be integrated into existing energy systems easily. While it won’t power entire nations like hydro or solar, it’s one of the most overlooked ways to decarbonise today. Awareness will come with time.