CarbonCandor
DataResearchAboutMethodologySubscribe
CarbonCandor

Advocating for affordable methane destruction that protects American farms, consumers, and the climate.

Navigate

HomeResearchAboutMethodologyData

Topics

Affordable SolutionsFarm AdvocacyClean Air TechnologyConsumer AffordabilityEvery Farm Matters

© 2026 CarbonCandor. All rights reserved.

Independent advocacy for atmospheric outcomes and consumer affordability.

← Research
Technical|10 min

Methane Slip: The Number the RNG Industry Buries

February 15, 2026

The RNG industry reports capture rates of 85-95%. These numbers are real. They are also misleading. What they do not include is methane slip: the methane lost during processing, compression, transport, and injection into the pipeline system.

What Methane Slip Actually Is

Methane slip occurs at every stage of the RNG value chain. Raw biogas upgrading systems vent methane during the separation of CO2 and other impurities. Compression stations leak at seals, valves, and connections. Pipeline transport introduces fugitive emissions along every mile of infrastructure.

Independent measurements consistently show total system losses of 5-15%, depending on technology, maintenance, and pipeline distance. Some studies have documented slip rates above 20% at poorly maintained facilities.

This is not a rounding error. Methane has 80x the warming potential of CO2 over 20 years. A system that captures 90% of methane but loses 10% through slip has not solved the problem. It has relocated it.

The Comparison

An enclosed flare destroys methane on-site. There is no processing step. There is no compression. There is no transport. There is no pipeline injection. The destruction efficiency is 98%+ by design, verified by continuous monitoring.

The comparison is not close:

RNG system: 85-95% capture, minus 5-15% slip = 72-90% net destruction Enclosed flare: 98%+ destruction, zero transport losses = 98%+ net destruction

When you factor in methane's warming potential, the gap between 80% and 98% net destruction is enormous. It is the difference between a meaningful climate intervention and an incremental improvement wrapped in a compelling financial narrative.

PreviousThe 17,500 Sites Left BehindNextDestruction vs. Monetization: A False Choice

Further reading

Policy Analysis

The Subsidy Trap: Why RNG Economics Collapse

March 15, 20268 min
Economics

The Economics of Enclosed Flares at Sub-Scale Sites

January 15, 20269 min
RNG Comparison

What It Actually Costs to Destroy a Ton of Methane

April 7, 20268 min read