Nikan
Forum Replies Created
From what we see across RNG projects, three issues tend to create the biggest problems between FEED and commissioning. First is feedstock variability and supply assumptions. Many projects model stable manure or organic waste volumes during FEED, but in reality seasonal variability, contamination, or competing waste markets can significantly affect digester performance and gas yield ( Mind those tipping fees!). Second is interconnection and gas quality compliance. Pipeline injection requirements such as methane concentration, siloxane removal, or pressure specifications are often more complex than expected, and delays in upgrading equipment or utility approvals can push commissioning timelines. Third is permitting and regulatory alignment, which is still frequently underestimated. Projects can face unexpected delays related to environmental permits, digestate management approvals, or aligning with programs like carbon or clean fuel credit systems.
Among these, interconnection timelines and regulatory alignment are probably still the most underestimated today because they depend heavily on external stakeholders and processes that developers do not fully control. Reach out to us in CNF and we should be able to help you with so much of these headaches!
This while a great question, I believe should be altered to ” How to create more revenue from my Biogas product?” And the answer to this question would be much more flexible to your specific system. Cheaper might be the solution in the short term, but what is the Biogas being utilized for? Ask yourself, can I upgrade this into RNG and take the envieronmental attributes? Can I utilize ( sell ) my biogas as utility to your own project ( still possible for Carbon attributes) or to adjacent projects? Can I pull my Biogas with adjacent projects and then upgrade? Once these are all explored, now there would be some more time to maximize the efficiency and reduce costs!
I can’t specifically comment on the significance of testing, but any methodology resulting in reduced fugitive emissions is worth it in the long term! Those emissions contribute massively to the final CI for each project and the difference of couple g CO2e of CI reduction is worth exploring maximizing your fugitive system efficiency!
Investors in RNG projects mainly look for revenue certainty and low risk. Key elements include long-term offtake agreements (in my experience between 10–20 years) with creditworthy buyers such as utilities or fuel suppliers, clear pricing and volume commitments, and the ability to stack revenues from environmental credits such as those under Canada’s CFR ( this is specially important since stacking in RIN and CA-LCFS market is very viable for US projects) They also focus on secured pipeline interconnection, clear ownership of environmental attributes, and predictable credit generation, since these factors make project cashflows more financeable.
Thats honestly a great question! Canadas RNG market is advancing, but compared to more mature European markets(some 20 years ahead) it still faces structural gaps. Countries like Germany and Denmark built scale through long term, stable policy mechanisms such as guaranteed tariffs and coordinated agricultural and energy strategies, which helped create thousands of projects and deep lender confidence. Canada relies more on provincial mandates, voluntary procurement, and layered federal programs such as carbon pricing and the Clean Fuel Regulations, which can create complexity and uneven demand signals across regions. In addition, Canada’s geography makes interconnection and logistics more expensive, and domestic financing institutions have a shorter track record with RNG assets. The fundamentals are strong, but policy consistency, infrastructure economics, and capital market maturity remain the key differences. So lets keep developing and we will get there!
Very likely, yes, unless a few things happen at once (capital costs normalize, more low-cost feedstock projects come online, and low-term contracting becomes standard).
The future next driver imo usually looks like a combination of:
– Longer term procurement and contract structures (so projects can finance on predictable cashflows)
– Stackable incentives (provincial and federal programs, grants, loan guarantees)
– Carbon Market credit value that projects can bank on (where elegible)
Sooo: the mandate can keep the market moving, but to scale sustainably, you typically need an additional layer that turns RNG into a financeable infrastucture asset, not just a compliance blend