Are We On the Right Road to the Energy Transition? Problems with the Current Path and a Possible Viable Roadmap to Slay the Energy Beast

By Steven Slome, FGE NexantECA
Special to The Digest

To date, efforts on energy transition have been characterized by an “all of the above” approach, with a wide range of feedstocks and technologies seeking to decarbonize a wide range of different fossil fuel end-uses.

This approach is hampered mainly by insufficient renewable power, insufficient biomass feedstock, high costs for many “end-use” technologies and lack of infrastructure for new fuels.

This is leading to inefficient distribution of resources (finance, time and biomass, i.e. carbon) among numerous routes, not all of which are even viable.

The most efficient way to reduce emissions overall is to supplement renewable power and unavoidable biofuels (SAF etc) by using the most widely available feedstock (cellulosic biomass) via the lowest cost technology (biogas to biomethane) with the widest range of end-uses (CNG, LNG, heat, power etc).

In this way, resources and effort can be concentrated and focused on the point of maximum impact.  Additionally, in the interim while fossil fuels and fossil feedstocks are still required, a “compromise of least harm” must be made as to which will cause the least emissions—it is this author’s opinion that natural gas is that feedstock/fuel (if leaks can be effectively mitigated). And natural gas would be a key “transitional fuel/feedstock” until such time as we can eventually replace it as well

The Energy Transition Speedbumps: Why We Aren’t Slaying the Beast

The energy transition is being stymied by 10 key factors:

1. Shortage of Renewable Mass / Molecules – Simply put, we are short on available carbon with which the fossil-derived carbon used in both fuels and chemicals can be replaced.  The key potential sources are biomass and captured carbon, both of which face significant scale challenges.
2. Shortage of Low Carbon Intensity (CI) Electrons / Energy – Just as we are short on available carbon molecules, we are also short on available power.  Power consumption is increasing, particularly as electrification becomes a viable option for decarbonization, and other uses – mainly for AI and data centers – are growing at extraordinary rates.  This rapid growth risks offsetting the admittedly very high growth of solar, wind, nuclear and other zero carbon power capacity, and diminishing their ability to erode demand for the highest emitting fossil energy source, coal.  While its use is plateauing, coal still accounted for over 30 percent of global power generation in 2025.
3. Shortage of “Steel in the Ground” – While significant efforts have been made to develop sustainable alternatives, meaningful replacement of fossil fuels by 2050 would require building rates exceeding those of the industrial revolution on several fronts; this is highly unlikely to actually occur.
4. Diversity of Replacement Strategies – Given the multiplicity of end-uses for fossil-derived products, efforts to replace them in individual applications have led to a proliferation of different solutions, all requiring high levels of investment; notably, most biofuels aim to replace a single product (e.g. ethanol for gasoline/petrol) and are limited by blend rates.
5. Shortage of “Easy” Low CI Feedstocks – While some biofuel feedstocks benefit from low Carbon Intensity and relative ease of use (notably Used Cooking Oil and tallow for Sustainable Aviation Fuel and Renewable Diesel) supply of these is severely constrained relative to the potential needs of a decarbonizing transport market.
6. Technical Barriers for “Hard” Low CI Bio Feedstocks –On the other hand, while other low CI feedstocks – chiefly cellulosic biomass – are theoretically widely available, many of the technical routes to their use (cellulosic ethanol, biomass gasification etc) have been slow to proliferate, facing commercialization problems and high costs.
7. High Cost of Other Low CI Options – Other very low Carbon Intensity alternatives are emerging, notably Power-to-Liquids (PTL/e-fuels) processes; however, these come at a very high cost and (as noted above) are dependent on the availability of renewable power.
8. High Cost of Direct Air Carbon Capture – DAC has been the focus of significant attention, both as a direct mitigant of emissions and as a source of captured CO₂ necessary for e-fuels production; however, while technically feasible, costs are extremely high, typically due to very high capital costs and energy requirements.
9. CCS is Slow and Not for All Applications – CCS growth is slow, and generally only best for high concentration CO₂ sources (e.g., hydrogen production). CCS, though growing well, is still only a tiny fraction of emissions and most use is for enhanced oil recovery which can be viewed as counterproductive at best.
10. Infrastructure and Logistics Matters – Many fossil end-uses have significant sunken capital and infrastructure. For example, aviation has airport infrastructure, aircraft lifetimes (measured in decades) and costs, infrastructure costs, logistics, and energy density among other considerations required to decarbonize.  Drop-in fuel applications will accordingly be favoured for these applications,among other considerations required to decarbonize.

To achieve net zero, the energy transition needs a clear path forward, and a solution to these ten obstacles, which it currently does not have. Here below, I intend to lay out both an in-depth look at these problems as well as a potential clear pathway that emerges from reviewing these facts.

Fossil Fuel Consumption: The Beast that Needs Slaying

Current fossil fuel consumption far dwarfs available renewable feedstocks. Coal and power production (of which is a major coal end use) are major contributors to this disparity—and currently power is growing for data-based end uses at significant levels (e.g., AI).   Good thing for renewable feedstocks, that they aren’t in this alone—wind, solar, nuclear, and other low CI power coupled with electrification is helping to reduce the power demand for fossil production.   This is part of the alure of DAC and PTL – we’re so short of material, pumping CO₂ out of the sky and using it is seen as an alternative, but at its cost it is likely to be an alternative of last resort. Underlying these individual challenges is the sheer scale of the task; comparing estimated 2025 fossil fuel consumption with the sum of 2025 potential alternatives (not even accounting for other uses of these alternatives such as food) illustrates this challenge:

Relative Supply of Major Biofeedstocks vs Fossil Fuel Consumption vs Low CI Energy
Mass Basis and MTOE, 2025

Image Source: FGE NexantECA Analysis

Addressable Markets: Slicing the Beast into Attackable Pieces

One part of the challenge – the lack of low/zero carbon power – is of course addressed by the continuing sharp growth of solar, wind and other renewable generation capacity, alongside growing nuclear capacity.  Renewables are estimated to have surpassed coal in terms of their share of global power generation in 2025, but coal still accounted for 34 percent of total generation, with natural gas taking a further 22 percent.  Despite the rapid growth of solar and wind power, renewables still face a major challenge in the power sector.  Notably, growth risks being offset by rapidly increasing demand from data-driven applications (data centres, AI etc) and the ongoing electrification of various fossil end-uses (including road transport), potentially slowing the decline of coal-fired generation.  Accordingly, any additional source of low/zero carbon power – including from biomass – will be a welcome addition.

Clearly, there are multiple pathways to decarbonising the range of non-power end-uses for fossil fuels for uses such as transport, heat, chemical production and industrial use.  Electrification remains a key option (“electrify everything”) but meaningful emissions reduction requires extensive additional renewable power capacity (already challenged, as above, to displace coal from current power use).  Many end-uses are also subject to the infrastructure and logistics issues noted above, meaning that alternative routes to the products currently derived from fossil fuels (i.e. substitute carbon atoms) will continue to be required.

Several emerging low CI technologies offer the prospect of fuels from sources other than biomass, or from new forms of biomass.  Most notably, e-fuels processes are progressing rapidly (spurred by incentivised demand in the European aviation sector and likely demand from the shipping industry).  However, e-fuels are also dependent on sufficient availability of renewable power capacity, have extremely high production costs, and are unlikely to find markets beyond those “hard to abate” sectors (aviation and shipping) where their use is likely to be encouraged.

Elsewhere, algae-based technologies have experienced several waves of attempted commercialization with little success, and are dogged by excessive costs, while the mitigation of emissions via Direct Air Capture is still undergoing commercialization, with costs also expected to be excessive.  Accordingly, biomass feedstocks will need to continue to play a significant role in overall decarbonization.

The only way to slay this beast is to chunk it up into “bite sized” portions, and see what can be addressed easily by biofeedstocks.  Right away we can eliminate several large end use segments that will have to be addressed by other means.  Coal-based power, coal for metallurgy, coal for  steel, coal for cement and concrete, asphalt and bitumen, and bunker fuel and heavy fuel oil will all need to find other solutions to decarbonize.   Many of these are a poor fit technically with renewable replacement, or in the case of power there are much better solutions.  While it is technically possible to supply the coal segments with biomass-based coal (e.g., via torrefaction), or supply them with hydrogen or power via biomass gasification, due to the supply mismatch, something must give—and these processes can be supplanted with solar, wind, nuclear, and other low CI power sources.

However, comparing the “addressable” share of total fossil fuels consumption with the estimated availability of the most widely available biomass feedstocks, as shown below, shows that the most widely used biofuels at present – ethanol and methyl ester biodiesel from crop-based feedstocks – face their own challenges, around overall Carbon Intensity, food competition, sustainability, and maximum blending levels.  Notably, even were the entire supply of corn, wheat, sugarcane and vegetable oils to be used for fuel (clearly impossible given their primary roles in food), they would not come close to equalling the scale of the challenge.

As seen below, renewable power is now very competitive with conventional sources:

Levelized Cost of Power
$/MwH, 2025

These renewable power sources are also significant reductions in CI compared to fossil sources, particularly coal. What is left is the addressable fossil fuel consumption, which appears to be a much more reasonable amount to displace.

Relative Supply of Major Biofeedstocks vs Addressable Fossil Fuel Consumption vs Low CI Energy
Mass Basis and MTOE, 2025

Image Source: FGE NexantECA Analysis

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that biofeedstocks are not as carbon rich as their fossil fuel counterparts.  Cellulosic biomass, corn, wheat, sugarcane, and sugar beet have significant heteroatom (particularly oxygen) content.  For fermentations (e.g. ethanol), this is usually removed at a cost of half of the carbon.  Furthermore, the masses shown are for the entire corn kernel and/or sugarcane stalk, which are not entirely sugar/starch. While natural oil feedstocks are significantly more carbon rich, their relative supply remains very small.  Waste oils such as Used Cooking Oil and tallow have low CI but their long-term availability is constrained, as they cannot easily grow beyond improvements in collection.

While a step in the right direction, in the long term many first generation feedstocks are substantially limited and will require significant hurdles overcome to get to net zero.

• Major Carbohydrate (Sugars and Starches)
  • Corn – a substantial food crop as well as feedstock for ethanol. Ethanol is generally blend limited (except Brazil). Ethanol is produced at a high CI, with minimal reductions against gasoline. Low CI corn is under development, and CCS can also be used with ethanol production to reduce the carbon footprint. Substantial emissions come from fertilizer use in the from of N₂O emissions which are hard to mitigate. Current production levels are small compared to global fossil fuel production.
  • Wheat – A substantial food crop. Current production levels are small compared to global fossil fuel production and it’s use is politically sensitive.
  • Sugarcane – a significant source of global sugar as well as feedstock for ethanol. Ethanol is generally blend limited (except Brazil). Ethanol is produced at a low CI, with high reductions against gasoline. CCS can also be used with ethanol production to further reduce the carbon footprint and bagasse is generally burned to produce power. Current production levels are small compared to global fossil fuel production and sustainable production is limited in geography, with major production in Brazil, India, and Pakistan.
  • Sugar beet – a significant source of global sugar as well as feedstock for ethanol. Ethanol is generally blend limited (except Brazil). Ethanol is produced at a low CI, with high reductions against gasoline. CCS can also be used with ethanol production to further reduce the carbon footprint. Current production levels are small compared to global fossil fuel production
• Major Natural Oils
  • Palm Oil – A significant food oil also used for oleochemicals and HVO with monoculture issues, orangutan habitat issues, and a high CI
  • Soybean Oil – A significant food oil also used for oleochemicals and HVO with monoculture issues and a high CI

UCO and Tallow, which are also used for oleochemicals and HVO, while not first generation feedstocks are low CI but long term market constrained, as they cannot easily grow beyond improvements in collection.

Even with all first generation feedstocks, plus the very small UCO and Tallow, the shortage is remarkable. The answer once again must include cellulosics, but cellulosics have been having problems.

A Hero Stumbles: The Problem with Advanced Cellulosics

In fact, the only biogenic source of carbon atoms available at near the required scale is cellulosic biomass, including agricultural residues, forestry waste and municipal solid waste.  There have been several pushes to commercialize advanced cellulosic technologies, mostly via ethanol, dating back to the late 1900s as well as multiple attempts in the last 20 years.  However, these have been met with limited success, and little to no proliferation, with examples including:

• Many failed attempts at cellulosic hydrolysis and fermentation to ethanol, with a few limited successes (e.g., in Brazil)
• Many failed attempts at cellulosic sugars production
• Failed attempts at biomass gasification to ethanol (e.g., Range Fuels)
• Non-proliferation of biomass gasification to methanol (e.g,. Enerkem)
• Many failed attempts at biomass gasification to FT liquids (e.g., Fulcrum, Solena)

Heroes that Never Were: The Problems with Other Advanced Low CI Technologies

There are a few other pathways to very low carbon-intensity (CI) fuels and net zero chemicals that have been explored, but most remain pre-commercial or have repeatedly stalled at scale. The common blockers are:

• very high capital costs
• high energy requirements
• heavy dependence on abundant low-CI electricity
• weak economics unless policy support is large and durable.

A practical tension is that if plentiful cheap clean power exists, it often delivers larger, cheaper decarbonization when used directly for electrification (rather than converting it into molecules with conversion losses).

Several of the more notable low CI ventures that have as of yet failed to deliver include the following:

• Algae-based fuels – Algae fuels have seen multiple commercialization “waves” because the concept is attractive (high theoretical yields, non-food land potential, non-fresh water requirements), but they struggle in practice with biological variability, contamination, harvesting/dewatering energy penalties, expensive infrastructure (ponds/photobioreactors, nutrient delivery, CO₂ These challenges drive high capex and high opex, so the resulting fuel tends to be structurally high-cost and difficult to scale competitively.
• PtL (Power-to-Liquids / e-fuels and e-chemicals) – PtL produces a range of synthetic liquid fuels and chemicals by using clean electricity to make hydrogen (electrolysis) and then combining it with CO₂ (captured from a point source or the air) to make syngas and then hydrocarbons (e.g., methanol, e-fuels via methanol-to-jet, Fischer–Tropsch). It can be very low-CI, but it is electricity-dominated and suffers from conversion losses across multiple steps, so costs remain excessively high unless you have very low-cost, high-uptime clean power plus cheap CO₂ supply and supportive policy.
• DAC (Direct Air Capture) – DAC removes CO₂ directly from ambient air to provide a high-purity CO₂feedstock (for storage or to combine with green hydrogen in PtL). It is compelling because it’s location-flexible and not limited to point sources, but CO₂ in air is very dilute, so DAC requires substantial energy and equipment, making it capital and energy intensive. DAC also doesn’t create a physical product by itself—its value is as an input to carbon removal (with storage) or synthetic fuels (PtL), which means the overall system inherits DAC’s cost and energy needs.  Additionally, the current business model for Direct Air Capture (DAC) isn’t “bankable” because lenders aren’t confident in the long-term revenue streams from DAC credits, especially given that voluntary carbon credit buyers often commit short-term, creating an asymmetric risk between costs and payments, and there is no physical product to hedge against credit price fluctuations.  For DAC to be financially viable, one party needs to control or internalize the full value chain (capture, storage, credit off-take, etc.) to make investment less risky.

It is worth noting that with sufficient government support (i.e., by funding the construction) coupled with upstream integration into renewable power (also government supported) could sufficiently reduce the cost of DAC, PTL, and/or a joint DAC-PTL system to economically viable. This is unlikely, however not beyond the realm of possible for a country such as China or Saudi Arabia—particularly as a way of asserting sustainability leadership and green credentials as the US has abdicated a climate leadership role under Trump’s Administration.

An Old Champion with Renewed Vigor: Biomethane

While these commercialisation efforts have been going on, biomethane – methane purified from biogas produced from biogenic sources – has grown steadily, and is emerging as a major potential decarbonisation option, both for power and non-power use.  Biomethane’s precursor, biogas (methane diluted by CO₂, H₂O, and other contaminants) is produced from a range of sources, including agricultural waste (residues, animal manure etc), municipal waste/landfill waste, and wastewater treatment/sewage.  The main production processes are anaerobic digestion and landfill capture.  Anaerobic digestion and landfill gas capture technologies are relatively simple in principle but have been rigorously developed to be as efficient as possible.  Carbon Intensity is low compared to fossil natural gas (and extremely low in some cases such as animal manure) dependent of the volume of methane that the waste stream would otherwise have emitted, as shown below.

Example: Carbon Intensity – Fossil Gas & Biomethane
(NexantECA Estimates of representative CI range)

Image Source: Market Insights: Biomethane (2023)

In addition, biomethane can be produced competitively with fossil natural gas, as shown below.

Example: Biomethane Economic Competitiveness in Western Europe
(Q3 2025)

Image Source: Biorenewable Insights: Biomethane (2025)

For both biogas and LFG production, the main technology driving recovery of usable energy and materials from commercial, industrial, and residential waste streams is relatively simple in principle but has been rigorously developed to be as efficient as possible. While the end result of the production of biogas and LFG is similar, a large methane stream diluted by CO₂, H₂O, and other contaminants, the production method may differ due to the initial state of the feedstock. For AD, the subsequent figure illustrates the microbial process where the first two steps are facultative (either aerobic or anaerobic), and the latter two are strictly anaerobic. For LFG, types of landfilling consist of composition, collection, and related methods.

Gas cleaning and upgrading are needed to meet pipeline quality requirements, including amine scrubbing, pressure swing absorption (PSA), membrane separation, water scrubbing, and cryogenic separation. If biogas and LFG are not upgraded and compressed for injection into a pipeline or hyper-compressed or liquefied for use as vehicle fuel, then they can be used to generate heat or electricity via commercially proven combined heat and power (CHP) plants.

AD plants and LFG collection plants commonly use some of their generated gas to provide both heat and power to the plant. Currently, biogas and LFG are most often used as fuel for both conventional boilers and CHP units for heat and electricity generation.

Anaerobic Digestion Technology Overview

Image Source: Biorenewable Insights: Biomethane (2025)

Alternatively, biogas and LFG can be reformed to make syngas for chemical synthesis. Biomethane is also fungible with natural gas, and as such is a drop-in to the existing value chain. This helps with the “steel in the ground problem”.   Additionally, using only commercial technologies for natural gas, biomethane may be converted into many of the end uses shown previously in the addressable markets.

Natural Gas and Biomethane Value Chain Technologies

Image Source: FGE NexantECA

The integration of current sources of biomethane such as LFG and agricultural biomass digestion into the current natural gas ecosystem can not only provide economic benefits to landfill owners and waste generators, but to the end-consumers of energy and communities without access to sufficient energy at reasonable cost.

This, coupled with the potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions relative to current systems, makes the prospect of an biomethane energy economy an attractive possibility.

Currently unharnessed sources of low-carbon biomethane can be directly substituted for natural gas, taking advantage of existing distribution infrastructure and assets. For example, purified AD and LFG can be used directly in gas-fired electric power generation as a low-carbon alternative to fossil gas.   The significance of this capability goes beyond mere substitution; due to the well-known ability of gas-fired power plants to act as rapidly deployable reserves, the use of biomethane with such facilities can improve grid reliability by acting against drops in grid voltage stemming from heavy use of intermittent renewable power in the distribution systems of the future.

Biomethane can serve a variety of non-electricity markets. Beyond electric power, biomethane can be used in such applications as:

• space heating
• cooking fuel
• as an internal combustion engine vehicles(e.g., as rCNG)
• fuel cell-electric vehicle fuel
• industrial motive power(rLNG and rCNG)
• steam generation
• chemical feedstock (e.g., hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, etc)

In fact there isn’t much that biomethane can’t do that natural gas can do except have a bigger carbon footprint.  It’s important to note that since methanol can be made from natural gas or biomethane, that any intermediate for the chemical industry can also be produced. Ethylene, propylene, and aromatics can all be produced from methanol via commerical technologies. Butene can also be produced via dimerization of ethylene. Those are the basic ingredients and backbone of the chemical industry.

Europe is by far the largest biomethane-producing region. Asia Pacific, which accounted for around 10 percent of global production, is expected to grow rapidly. South America, the Middle East, and Africa are small biogas producers with little production growth expected. Biomethane production globally is minimal compared to existing natural gas production and consumption, thus significantly larger volumes of biogas will have to be produced to have any impact on global natural gas markets and broader fossil fuel markets. In the United States, high adoption rates of biomethane from LFG have already been seen, and over 60 percent of candidate landfills are already undergoing some sort of LFG project. In other regions, adoption rates are much lower.

Help Along the Way: A Role For CCS

CCS has some problems. One is that it is very small as compared to global emissions.

CO₂ Emissions vs Demand vs CCS

Image Source: Adapted from Market Insights: Carbon Dioxide (2023)

Another problem is that it is not a perfect fit for every application – CO₂ concentrations will dictate costs, and only high concentration sources are captured at low costs.

Sources and Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide

Image Source: Adapted from Market Insights: Carbon Dioxide (2023)

Yet another issue is that not every location has a long term storage solution in place, and pipelines are costly and seeing NIMBY problems.  Indeed much of CCS captured is being used for enhanced oil recovery which has its own issues.

CCS can have a role to play. While not optimal for all situations, it is good for applications where there is a high concentration of carbon dioxide. Clean-up of biogas to pipeline quality biomethane is one such application. This can therefore take an already net zero or carbon negative feedstock and further reduce its carbon footprint.

The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend: A Transitional Pathway to Net Zero

Natural gas, if leaks are mitigated, has the potential to be a much cleaner source of power than coal or oil, all while supplying most of the same markets A reasonable energy transition could include natural gas as a transitional fuel/feedstock, until such time as markets are no longer short on the molecules and electrons needed to fully displace fossil fuels, avoiding the risk of resurgent coal use as energy demand rises.  Natural gas can be a powerful ally to remove coal and crude oil from the energy equation.

Once that is accomplished, natural gas can become the next beast to slay—and with the energy value chain already set to work on natural gas, biomethane, which is  the only proliferated cellulosic biofuel/feedstock can drop right into the value chain Once that is accomplished, natural gas can itself be displaced, and with the energy value chain already set to work on natural gas, biomethane, which is the only proliferated cellulosic biofuel/feedstock, can drop directly into the value chain.  While natural gas is certainly not a “net zero” fuel or feedstock, it is “lower than the average” which is still a step in the right direction, and one that paves the way for biomethane – a real contributor to meaningful decarbonization – to step in, and biomethane is a net zero fuel and feedstock (in fact with or without CCS it can be carbon negative).    The largest and most highly impacted markets that would truly not be serviced by such a shift away from oil and coal could be mitigatable:

• Asphalt – Waste plastic based alternatives are under development for road use.
• Some Lubricants – Alternative synthetic lubricants are under development and in use
• Bunker Fuel and Heavy Fuel Oil – Methanol, Ammonia, and EVs are all solutions to the use of such highly polluting fuels. The lack of availability of such fuels would further force shipping to alternatives and would widely be seen as an energy transition win.

In short, it is this authors opinion that the best path forward is for the industry to invest and governments to support investment in natural gas along with renewables now to get coal and then oil offline and set up a more sustainable gas-based hydrocarbon energy system that can be adapted and replaced long term with biomethane and sustainable power. 

Key Recent FGE NexantECA Reports in This Space

FGE NexantECA has been very active in this space, with key reports related to the topic discussed.  These include:

• Technoeconomics, Process Info, Cost of Production, and Carbon Intensity Models
  • Biorenewable Insights: First Generation Ethanol and Advanced Ethanol (Coming Soon 2026)
  • Biorenewable Insights: Cellulosic Feedstocks and Technologies (Coming Soon 2026)
  • Biorenewable Insights: Low CI Carbohydrate Feedstocks (Coming Soon 2026)
  • Biorenewable Insights: Advances in Natural Oil Feedstocks (Coming Soon 2026)
  • Biorenewable Insights: Advances in HVO/HEFA (Coming Soon 2026)
  • Biorenewable Insights: Green Hydrogen (Coming Soon 2026)
  • Biorenewable Insights: Low CI Marine Transport (Coming Soon 2026)
  • Biorenewable Insights: Alternative Aviation (Coming Soon 2026)
  • Biorenewable Insights: Biomethane (2025)
  • Biorenewable Insights: Biomass Gasification(2025)
  • Biorenewable Insights: e-SAF (2025)
  • Biorenewable Insights: e-Methanol (2025)
  • Biorenewable Insights: Biomethanol (2025)
  • Biorenewable Insights: Fermentation Bio-Oils (2025)
  • Biorenewable Insights: Methanol to Jet (2024)
  • Biorenewable Insights: Methanol to Gasoline (2024)
  • Biorenewable Insights: Ethanol to Jet (2024)
  • Biorenewable Insights: FT Processes (2024)
  • Biorenewable Insights: Biomass Energy Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) & Biomass with Carbon Removal and Storage (BiCRS) (2024)
  • Biorenewable Insights: Syngas and Carbon Dioxide Fermentation (2024)
• Market Data and Analysis including capacity, SDT, pricing, and demand analysis
  • Market Analytics: Fuels and Feedstocks (Coming Soon 2026)
  • Lumen – a comprehensive platform including a gas model (Coming Soon 2026)
  • Biofuels Monthly (2026)
  • Market Insights: Carbon Dioxide (2025)
  • Market Insights: e-Fuels (2025)
  • Market Insights: HVO (2025)
  • Market Insights: Recycled and Renewable Feedstock (2025)
  • Market Insights: Fuel Ethanol (2024)
  • Market Insights: Hydrogen (2024)
  • Market Insights: Marine Fuels (2024)
  • Market Insights: Oleochemicals (2024)
  • Market Insights: Lithium Chemicals (2024)
  • Market Insights: Biomethane (2023)