Although both offer landfill gas engines, when comparing Caterpillar versus Cummins Landfill Gas Engines, be aware that the primary difference between Caterpillar (CAT) and Cummins is their modern business focus: Cummins continues to actively dominate the on-highway semi-truck market, whereas Caterpillar left the on-highway engine market back in 2010 to focus exclusively on construction, mining, marine, and industrial power generation.
Key Landfill Gas Engine Takeaways:
- Landfill gas is one of the most corrosive fuel sources on earth
- Siloxanes, hydrogen sulfide, and inconsistent methane content make engine selection critical to project profitability.
- Caterpillar's G3500 series dominates large-scale landfill gas installations, handling outputs from 500kW to over 1,500kW with proven tolerance for low-BTU fuel.
- Cummins has entered the landfill gas space aggressively with lean-burn technology that offers strong mid-range performance and flexible installation footprints.
- The wrong engine choice can cost hundreds of thousands in premature overhauls
- Understanding siloxane tolerance thresholds before you spec your generator set is the single most important decision you'll make.
Both manufacturers offer landfill-specific configurations, but their approaches to gas pretreatment requirements, maintenance intervals, and emissions compliance differ in ways that matter over a 10-year project horizon.
Choosing the wrong engine for a landfill gas project doesn't just hurt performance — it accelerates wear, inflates maintenance costs, and can turn a profitable renewable energy project into a financial headache within the first two years of operation.
Landfill gas power generation is the perfect blend of environmental engineering and heavy-duty mechanical performance. Power Generation Enterprises is an expert in this type of industrial power application, working with both Caterpillar and Cummins equipment in challenging real-world settings. Choosing between these two manufacturers isn't easy, and anyone who tells you one brand is always superior probably hasn't spent much time on the job.
Landfill Gas Fuels Both Caterpillar and Cummins, But Not Equally
Both Caterpillar and Cummins manufacture engines that can run on landfill gas. That much is certain. However, landfill gas isn't a clean, consistent fuel like pipeline natural gas — it's a chemically aggressive, variable-quality mixture that affects engines differently depending on their engineering. The difference between “can run on landfill gas” and “optimized for landfill gas” is where real-world performance greatly differs between these two manufacturers.
For years, Caterpillar has been installing its G3516 and G3520 models at municipal solid waste landfills across North America. These models are often used in large-scale energy recovery projects. On the other hand, Cummins has been building its reputation in the landfill gas sector with its lean-burn QSV and GTA series engines. These engines are designed for operators who need flexibility and a smaller installation footprint without having to sacrifice output. To understand why each company has taken a different approach, it's important to understand what landfill gas does to an engine.
“Caterpillar vs. Cummins Landfill Gas Engine” from en.wikipedia.org and used with no modifications.
The Challenges of Landfill Gas for Engines
Landfill gas is typically composed of approximately 50% methane and 50% carbon dioxide, but the actual composition at any given landfill can be much more complex. Nitrogen, oxygen, and trace amounts of volatile organic compounds are often present, as well as siloxanes and hydrogen sulfide. These last two compounds are particularly harmful to engines that aren't specifically designed or configured to run on this type of fuel. For more information on the environmental impact of landfill gases, you can explore landfills and methane gas solutions.
The Damaging Impact of High Siloxane Content
Siloxanes, which are compounds based on silicon, vaporize within the landfill and become concentrated in the gas stream. When gas containing siloxanes is combusted inside an engine cylinder, the silicon oxidizes and leaves behind deposits of silicon dioxide — essentially glass — on the piston crowns, cylinder liners, valves, and components of the turbocharger. These deposits are abrasive and hard, and nearly impossible to remove without the use of mechanical methods. For more insights on engine performance, you can explore the discussion on Cummins vs. Cat engines.
Most operators are surprised at how quickly the damage adds up. Siloxane concentrations as low as 10 mg/m³ can cause measurable wear within a few thousand operating hours if upstream treatment systems aren't functioning correctly. Both Caterpillar and Cummins publish siloxane tolerance limits for their landfill gas engine configurations, and exceeding those limits voids warranty coverage — a critical detail when evaluating total project risk.
Engine Components Corrosion due to Hydrogen Sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) in landfill gas can cause sulfidation corrosion, attacking copper-based alloys, brass fittings, and some bearing materials. It also speeds up the degradation of lubricating oil, creating sulfuric acid compounds in the crankcase that attack bearing surfaces and journal bores. Engines that run on landfill gas usually need oil analysis intervals of 250 to 500 hours, compared to the standard 500 to 750 hours typically seen in natural gas applications.
Caterpillar's landfill engines use oil with higher alkalinity reserves, or a higher Total Base Number (TBN), to neutralize acid buildup. Cummins also uses enhanced oil change protocols for its landfill gas engines, but the specific TBN requirements and drain intervals can vary depending on the model and gas quality. For more information on the importance of these protocols, you can explore details on landfill gas engine tendering.
Changing Methane Levels and Energy Production
The quality of gas in a landfill is always changing. As a section of the landfill gets older, the methane content goes down. It also changes with the seasons, when it rains, and when the type of waste in the landfill changes. Engines that are set up to run on 50% methane might run too lean or too rich if the methane level changes to 40% or 55%. This can cause the engine to knock, increase emissions, and make the power output change.
Here is where the air-fuel ratio control systems are crucial. The latest Cat G3500 series engines utilize the ADEM™ A4 engine control module with closed-loop lambda control, which continuously modifies the air-fuel ratio in reaction to gas quality changes. Cummins tackles the same issue via its proprietary Electronic Control Module (ECM) with adaptive fueling strategies in the QSV series — a direct competitive response to Cat's established presence in variable-gas applications.
“null” from en.wikipedia.org and used with no modifications.
Pros and Cons of Caterpillar Landfill Gas Engines
Caterpillar has been refining its landfill gas engine lineup since the early days of municipal landfill energy recovery programs in the 1980s. The company's history is evident in the mechanical strength of its current generation engines and the precision of its application engineering documentation.
When it comes to Caterpillar's landfill gas offerings, the G3500 series is the star of the show. These engines are four-stroke, spark-ignited, turbocharged, and aftercooled, with a range of configurations from the G3516 at around 1,130 ekW to the G3520 at around 1,600 ekW at standard ratings. For larger sites, Caterpillar provides the G3520H and G3520E models, which have been engineered to better handle low-BTU fuel conditions — a direct response to the issue of variable gas quality.
Best Caterpillar Models for Landfill Gas Applications
The Caterpillar G3516 TA is ideal for medium to large landfill sites. It has a 16-cylinder configuration that provides consistent output even when operating on gas with methane concentrations as low as 35%, with the necessary derating applied. The G3520C and G3520E are great for high-output locations where multiple units would otherwise be needed, reducing the complexity of installation and control system overhead.
For smaller landfills or early-phase installations where gas production hasn't peaked, Cat's G3406 and G3412 models have traditionally been used for the 150kW to 400kW range. However, newer projects are increasingly turning to the G3516 for long-term scalability, even if the initial output is significantly less than the nameplate capacity. For more insights on this, explore the landfill gas engine tendering process.
How Caterpillar Manages Siloxane and H2S Pollution
Caterpillar's application engineers require upstream siloxane removal systems to qualify for warranty coverage on landfill gas installations. The company's public guidelines suggest siloxane concentrations below 28 mg/m³ at the engine inlet for G3500 series engines. This limit usually needs activated carbon filtration or refrigeration-based condensation before the engine. For more information on the comparison between Caterpillar and Cummins engines, you can explore further details.
For H₂S, Cat suggests levels under 1,000 ppm at the engine inlet for standard configurations, and they suggest enhanced oil monitoring protocols above 200 ppm. Their S·O·S℠ (Scheduled Oil Sampling) program works directly with landfill gas operation, and it flags raised sulfur compounds and silicon content in oil samples before they reach damaging levels in engine parts.
Range and Scalability of Power Output
Caterpillar's scalability advantage in landfill gas applications is tangible and significant. A single G3520E can generate approximately 1,600 ekW on pipeline-quality gas, with landfill gas derating typically dropping output to the 1,200 to 1,400 ekW range depending on actual methane content. Therefore, a two-unit installation can support a 2.4 to 2.8 MW generation project — a scale that previously required three or four smaller engines.
Having fewer engines translates into fewer maintenance events, simpler control architectures, and lower capital costs for ancillary systems such as cooling, exhaust treatment, and switchgear. This advantage of economies of scale is one of the main reasons why Cat is the leader in the largest landfill gas installations in the U.S. market.
Adaptable Fuel Inputs and Gas Quality Tolerances of Cat
For a wide array of fuel quality inputs, Caterpillar's G3500 series engines are constructed to work, which is crucial in landfill applications where the gas composition is always changing. The ADEM™ A4 control system fine-tunes the ignition timing and air-fuel ratio in real time, enabling the engine to maintain steady combustion across methane concentrations from about 35% to 70% without the need for manual intervention. This range encompasses the entire lifecycle of the majority of municipal solid waste landfills, from active fill sections that produce rich gas to aging cells where the methane content has dropped significantly.
The Pros and Cons of Cummins Landfill Gas Engines
Cummins has built its reputation for landfill gas engines in a different way than Caterpillar, focusing less on displacement and more on lean-burn combustion technology that extracts efficiency from lower-BTU fuel streams. The company's strategy emphasizes lower emissions at the stack and greater installation flexibility. This has earned Cummins a loyal following among project developers working with mid-size landfills, landfill gas-to-pipeline projects, and sites where space constraints make the larger Cat installations impossible.
However, there's a catch. Cummins engines typically have a lower power output per unit in the landfill gas industry than the Cat G3520 series. This means that large-scale installations need more units to achieve the same generation capacity. If a single generation facility is aiming for 3 MW or more, the number of units needed increases rapidly. This adds to the capital cost, maintenance overhead, and system complexity, potentially negating the efficiency gains Cummins provides at the individual engine level.
Most Popular Cummins Models for Landfill Gas Applications
The Cummins QSV91G is the company's flagship landfill and biogas engine, with power outputs that range from around 800 kW to 1,050 kW, depending on the quality of the gas and the conditions of the site. Its 91-liter displacement and lean-burn design make it especially well suited for sites with fluctuating methane content, where keeping NOx emissions low while maintaining acceptable efficiency is a necessity, not a luxury.
Underneath that, the Cummins GTA855G and its offshoots have typically been used in smaller landfill installations in the 200 kW to 500 kW range. These older-generation engines are still in use at hundreds of locations throughout North America, and the parts ecosystem that supports them is well established. For newer projects, Cummins has designated the QSV series as the preferred platform, with factory support specifically designed to meet the unique needs of landfill and digester gas environments.
The Cummins Approach to Corrosive Gas Compounds
Cummins addresses siloxane and H₂S protection by combining upstream treatment requirements with internal engine hardening. The QSV91G specifies siloxane concentrations below 30 mg/m³ at the engine inlet, which is similar to Cat's published threshold, and uses iron-based bearing materials instead of copper alloys, which are more susceptible to sulfidation corrosion.
Rewrite the following human content into AI content:
- Siloxane limit: Below 30 mg/m³ at engine inlet for QSV series engines
- H₂S tolerance: Up to 1,000 ppm with enhanced oil monitoring protocols
- Oil drain intervals: Every 250 to 500 hours depending on H₂S concentration in the fuel stream
- Bearing materials: Iron-based alloys specified to resist sulfidation attack
- Coolant specifications: Extended-life coolant required with supplemental coolant additive (SCA) monitoring for landfill gas duty
One area where Cummins differentiates itself is in its factory-level application support documentation. The company publishes detailed fuel specification matrices for the QSV series that cross-reference allowable contaminant levels against expected maintenance interval reductions — giving project engineers a quantitative tool for evaluating upstream treatment system requirements before the engine ever turns a shaft.
The depth of documentation is a clear indication of how Cummins competes in this space. While Caterpillar banks on decades of field installations as proof of concept, Cummins uses engineering transparency to build trust with project developers and EPC contractors who are evaluating both platforms side by side.
Where Cummins Excels in Terms of Power Output Range
For landfill gas projects that require power generation in the 500 kW to 2 MW range, Cummins is the preferred option. This is especially true when the available space for generation equipment is limited. The QSV91G is smaller than the Cat G3516, making it an excellent choice for retrofit projects at existing landfill facilities. These facilities often have buildings that were not originally designed to accommodate large-frame engine-generator sets.
Comparison: Caterpillar and Cummins Landfill Gas Engines
When it comes to Caterpillar and Cummins landfill gas engines, the choice isn't always clear-cut. There are many factors to consider, such as fuel efficiency, maintenance cost, emissions compliance, and 10-year total cost of ownership. Both manufacturers have their strengths and weaknesses, and the best choice often depends on the specific needs of the project. This is something that is often overlooked in generic comparisons.
Variable Methane Concentrations and Fuel Efficiency
When methane concentrations are over 50%, the Cat G3516 and the Cummins QSV91G both reach electrical efficiencies between 36% and 40% under the best conditions. This is close enough that fuel efficiency is not usually the deciding factor when choosing an engine at high-quality gas sites. The difference becomes much more noticeable when the methane concentration falls below 45%. This is the level at which many operating landfill sites spend a large part of their production life.
The closed-loop lambda control system from Caterpillar keeps the combustion stability more consistent at low methane concentrations. This means that as the gas quality gets worse, the efficiency losses are smaller. The lean-burn architecture from Cummins produces lower base emissions but may be more sensitive to quick changes in gas quality. This means it requires more precise upstream blending or conditioning to keep peak efficiency across the full methane concentration range.
Here's a comparison of the Caterpillar and Cummins landfill gas engines:
- When methane is more than 50%: Both Caterpillar and Cummins engines reach an electrical efficiency of 36%–40%, which is a negligible difference.
- When methane is between 40% and 50%: The Caterpillar G3516 engine maintains its efficiency more consistently. On the other hand, the Cummins QSV91G engine is more sensitive to changes in concentration.
- When methane is less than 40%: The Caterpillar G3500 series engine with low-BTU configuration performs better. The Cummins engine, however, needs supplemental gas blending or derating.
- When there are rapid changes in gas quality: The Caterpillar ADEM™ A4 adaptive control responds faster. The Cummins engine, however, benefits more from upstream buffer/blending systems.
For landfill operators who manage aging gas collection systems with significant changes in quality, Caterpillar's real-time adaptive controls offer a significant operational advantage. This advantage becomes more valuable over a multi-year project lifecycle when costs for manual intervention and unplanned downtime events are considered.
Service Schedules and Spare Parts Supply
Both Caterpillar and Cummins recommend more frequent service intervals for landfill gas engines than for pipeline natural gas engines due to the corrosive nature of the fuel. Caterpillar's G3500 series engines typically need minor servicing every 1,000 hours, major top-end overhauls every 8,000 to 12,000 hours, and major overhauls after 24,000 hours or more, depending on the results of oil analysis and operating conditions.
Cummins' QSV91G engines have similar service intervals, with minor servicing recommended at 1,000 hours and major overhauls between 8,000 and 16,000 hours. The wider range reflects the QSV's sensitivity to the quality of the gas over time. Caterpillar has a clear advantage when it comes to the availability of spare parts. It has one of the largest dealer networks in the world and a large aftermarket parts ecosystem, so Caterpillar parts can be delivered to even the most remote landfill sites more quickly and through more supply channels than Cummins parts in many regions.
Meeting Emissions Standards for Landfill Gas Facilities
In the United States, landfill gas power generation projects are subject to the EPA's New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Subpart YYYY. In California, these projects must also comply with CARB's strict distributed generation regulations. Both Caterpillar and Cummins have configurations that meet these regulations. However, the way each platform achieves compliance varies.
Without aftertreatment, Cummins' lean-burn QSV91G achieves lower baseline NOx emissions, typically in the 0.5 to 1.0 g/bhp-hr range. This simplifies the regulatory compliance package and reduces capital cost for projects in NOx-sensitive airsheds. Standard rich-burn configuration G3500 series engines from Cat produce higher NOx at the engine outlet, typically requiring Three-Way Catalyst (TWC) aftertreatment systems to meet strict air permit requirements. Cat does offer lean-burn configurations on select G3500 models, but
Cummins holds a genuine engineering edge in low-NOx performance without aftertreatment on the engines where both platforms compete directly.
10-Year Total Cost of Ownership
When considering the cost of capital, installation, recovered fuel value, labor for maintenance, parts usage, and planned overhaul costs over a 10-year project, the difference between Cat and Cummins is much less than the nameplate specs would lead you to believe.
The higher upfront capital cost for Cat's G3516 or G3520 is somewhat balanced out by its higher output capacity per unit — which means fewer engines, fewer maintenance events, and a simpler balance-of-plant infrastructure. The lower unit capital cost for Cummins and its lower NOx aftertreatment requirements balance out its need for additional units at larger sites.
For projects that are under 2 MW, Cummins often has a lower total cost of ownership over 10 years. For projects over 3 MW, Caterpillar usually has the advantage due to economies of scale.
Choosing the Best Engine for Your Landfill Gas Project
Let's be honest, there's no one-size-fits-all answer to whether Caterpillar or Cummins is the best choice for every landfill gas project. The decision should be based on the specific needs of your site, such as gas production volume, methane concentration stability, available footprint, local emissions requirements, and proximity to qualified service providers, rather than brand preference. However, when you compare the two platforms across a range of real-world installations, certain trends become apparent. For more insights, you can explore UK landfill gas energy insights.
Why Caterpillar May Be the Better Option
If your landfill gas project involves high generation capacity targets, variable gas quality, or remote site locations where minimizing the number of engines in service directly reduces operational risk, Caterpillar should be on your short list. If your site is targeting 2 MW or more from a single generation facility, the G3516 or G3520 series delivers that capacity with fewer units, simpler controls, and a parts network that reaches almost anywhere.
Cat is also the stronger choice for sites with significant methane concentration variability — below 45% methane or subject to rapid quality swings — where the ADEM™ A4 adaptive control system provides genuine combustion stability advantages over the competition.
Why Cummins Is a Better Option
Cummins is a more powerful choice for projects ranging from 500 kW to 2 MW, especially in places where strict NOx emissions limits are in place and avoiding expensive aftertreatment systems is a priority. The lean-burn design of the QSV91G makes it a good fit for projects in California and other CARB-regulated environments, where the difference between meeting air permit requirements with or without a Three-Way Catalyst system can mean a difference in capital costs of six figures. Cummins also comes out on top in retrofit installations where space is limited and the physical size of a Cat G3516 simply won't fit without significant civil construction work.
Aside from emissions and footprint, Cummins has put a lot of money into application engineering support documentation for the QSV series. This includes detailed fuel specification matrices, contaminant tolerance tables, and maintenance interval calculators. These provide project developers and EPC contractors with a clearer engineering basis for system design. For project teams building their first landfill gas installation without extensive prior experience on either platform, this depth of documentation can significantly lower engineering risk during the project development phase.
Scale Goes to Caterpillar — Flexibility to Cummins
With thousands of hours of landfill gas operation on both platforms, the conclusion is clear: Caterpillar is the top choice for large-scale, high-output projects where gas quality variability and long-term mechanical durability are the main concerns, while Cummins shines on mid-range projects where emissions compliance, installation flexibility, and lower upfront capital cost are the deciding factors.
The most successful landfill gas projects aren't built on brand loyalty — they're built on a careful match between engine capabilities and the specific fuel, regulatory, and operational conditions at each individual site.
Common Questions
These are the questions most often asked by project developers, facility managers, and engineers when they are considering Caterpillar and Cummins engines for landfill gas power generation applications.
Is it possible to operate both Caterpillar and Cummins engines on raw landfill gas without any pretreatment?
No, it is not — neither manufacturer recommends nor provides a warranty for operation on completely raw, untreated landfill gas. Both the Cat G3500 series and the Cummins QSV91G require upstream gas conditioning to remove or reduce siloxanes, hydrogen sulfide, moisture, and particulates to within specified inlet limits before the gas reaches the engine.
Running untreated landfill gas through either platform accelerates cylinder wear from silicon dioxide deposits, degrades lubricating oil through sulfuric acid formation, and voids factory warranty coverage. Minimum treatment typically includes moisture removal, particulate filtration, and siloxane reduction to below 28–30 mg/m³ — the threshold both manufacturers publish for their respective landfill gas engine configurations.
What level of methane concentration do Cat and Cummins landfill gas engines need?
Both types can work with methane concentrations as low as around 35% if the engine is properly derated. At this concentration, the power output will be significantly reduced — usually 20% to 35% below the nameplate ratings — as the engine management system alters the air-fuel ratio and ignition timing to keep combustion stable on the lower-energy fuel stream. Pipeline natural gas operates at roughly 95%+ methane content, so landfill gas always involves some performance reduction relative to nameplate specifications.
When operating at low methane concentrations, the key difference between Cat and Cummins is how each platform reacts to sudden changes in quality, rather than the absolute minimum methane threshold. Cat's ADEM™ A4 closed-loop lambda control adjusts in real time, while Cummins' QSV91G lean-burn system works best with a more stable upstream gas quality. This means that upstream blending or buffer tank systems are more crucial in Cummins installations at sites with high variability.
How often do landfill gas engines require major overhauls compared to natural gas engines?
Landfill gas engines need major overhauls more frequently than engines that run on pipeline natural gas. For pipeline gas, Cat G3500 series engines usually get 24,000 to 36,000 hours between major overhauls. In landfill gas service at sites where gas quality is near the upper tolerance limits for siloxane and H₂S content, that interval compresses to 16,000 to 24,000 hours — sometimes shorter if oil analysis reveals accelerated contamination.
Cummins QSV91G overhaul intervals follow a similar pattern, with major overhauls required every 16,000 hours under typical landfill gas conditions. The key variable in both cases is how consistently the upstream gas conditioning system maintains contaminant levels within specification — operators who invest in quality upstream treatment consistently achieve the longer end of the published overhaul interval ranges.
Do Caterpillar and Cummins provide factory warranties for landfill gas applications?
Yes, both Caterpillar and Cummins provide warranty coverage for landfill gas applications, but it is subject to strict compliance with published fuel specification requirements, approved lubricant selections, and documented maintenance interval compliance. Caterpillar's warranty for landfill gas configurations is managed through its authorized dealer network, with participation in the S·O·S℠ oil sampling program often required for extended warranty eligibility. Similarly, Cummins provides conditional coverage for QSV series engines in biogas and landfill gas service, with fuel analysis documentation and compliance with published inlet specification limits serving as the primary warranty condition triggers.
For those who develop projects, the practical meaning is that the value of a warranty is directly related to the quality of the gas conditioning infrastructure upstream. An engine that operates within the limits of the published fuel specification and has documented oil sampling records is an asset that is fully warranted. An engine that is regularly exposed to siloxane or H₂S concentrations above the published thresholds, even if only intermittently, is operating in a warranty gray area that manufacturers will closely examine when evaluating any warranty claim.
How long does it take to recoup the costs of a landfill gas power generation project?
The time it takes to recoup the costs of a landfill gas power generation project can vary greatly depending on the size of the project, the rate of electricity offtake, any incentives that are available, and the structure of the capital cost. Small projects that generate less than 500 kW of power for on-site use at a landfill operation with a tipping fee can typically recoup their costs in 4 to 7 years.
Mid-size projects that generate 1 MW to 3 MW of power and sell it under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) usually aim for a payback period of 5 to 9 years. This wide range takes into account differences in PPA pricing, state-level renewable energy incentives, and whether the project is eligible for federal tax credits under clean energy programs that are available.
Projects that use Caterpillar engines at the higher end of the power output range can benefit from lower cost-per-kilowatt ratios, which can shorten the payback period compared to equivalent multi-unit Cummins installations. However, this is only the case when the volume of gas production justifies operating large-frame engines at reasonable load factors. If a Cat G3520 that is too large is running at a 40% load factor for the first few years of a project's life while the landfill's gas production is increasing, it can completely eliminate the economies-of-scale advantage.
Caterpillar and Cummins are two leading manufacturers of landfill gas engines, each offering distinct advantages. For those interested in a comprehensive comparison, you can explore more about Caterpillar vs. Cummins engines and their applications. This comparison can help you make an informed decision based on your specific needs and preferences.
Landfills and Methane Gas – Solutions and Environmental Impact
Methane from landfills is 80 times stronger than CO2 over 20 years, posing a critical climate challenge. The EPA's 3.7 million metric tons estimate contrasts with satellite data suggesting 6 million tons, underscoring the need for effective methane reduction and landfill management strategies…
Gas Flaring Systems vs. Gas-to-Energy Systems for LFG Utilization and Compliance
Gas flaring meets EPA compliance but incurs costs with no return, while LFG energy recovery systems offer revenue potential. With the EPA’s LMOP tools and carbon credit opportunities, making the right choice is vital for financial and environmental benefits. Discover which system excels in compliance and outcomes…
UK Landfill Gas – Energy, Insights & Information
Beneath capped surfaces of former UK rubbish tips, methane from decomposing waste is powering homes. While landfill gas output is declining due to stricter waste policies, capturing this potent greenhouse gas remains a critical climate win, offering a unique chance to maximize energy recovery from legacy sites…
Landfill Gas Engine Tendering Tips for High Landfill Gas Utilisation and Value
We decided to create this article about landfill gas engine tendering due to concerns about the lowest cost tendering rules. Read on for our tips designed to help you procure high landfill Gas Utilisation and low prices. Very often, a landfill gas CHP unit (gas engine) is selected, which offers a low capital cost, but […]
