Which is the best biofuel?

There’s no single “best” biofuel for every situation. In 2025, the top choices depend on where and how the fuel is used: renewable diesel (HVO) from waste oils and animal fats is the strongest all-around drop-in for road and marine diesel; sustainable aviation fuel made from wastes and residues is the best option for jet engines; renewable natural gas (biomethane) from manure and landfills can deliver the biggest climate impact for fleets that can use it; and for gasoline blending, sugarcane ethanol (and, where available, cellulosic ethanol) outperforms conventional corn ethanol. The right answer hinges on lifecycle emissions, feedstock sustainability, scalability, and compatibility with existing engines and infrastructure.

How to judge “best”: the criteria that matter

Selecting a biofuel isn’t just about tailpipe carbon. What matters most is its full lifecycle footprint, from how the feedstock is grown or collected to processing, transport, and final combustion, plus whether it fits existing vehicles and supply chains at a realistic cost.

• Lifecycle greenhouse-gas (GHG) reduction: How much it cuts emissions versus the fossil fuel it replaces, including land-use change and process energy.
• Feedstock sustainability: Whether it uses wastes/residues, avoids deforestation and food-vs-fuel pressure, and protects water and biodiversity.
• Scalability: Whether sufficient, verifiable feedstock exists without unintended consequences or fraud risks.
• Air-quality co-benefits: Impacts on particulates, NOx, sulfur, and toxics in real engines and duty cycles.
• Drop-in compatibility and energy density: Ability to use existing engines, pipelines, and tanks without blending limits.
• Cost and policy fit: Current and foreseeable compliance with regional mandates and incentives (e.g., LCFS credits, SAF mandates, clean fuel standards).

In practice, the “best” biofuel checks most of these boxes at once; strong performance on climate but poor feedstock sustainability or limited scalability is not a winning long-term answer.

Best biofuel by use case in 2025

Because different engines and sectors have different needs, the standout biofuel varies by application. Here’s where each option currently excels based on technology readiness, sustainability, and policy momentum.

• Aviation: Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) from wastes and residues. Today, HEFA-SAF (made from used cooking oil, tallow, and similar fats) dominates and typically delivers about 50–80% lifecycle GHG cuts versus fossil jet, depending on feedstock and process. Emerging routes like Fischer‑Tropsch SAF from agricultural/forestry residues or municipal waste, and Alcohol-to-Jet from ethanol, can go higher—especially with low-carbon hydrogen and, in some projects, carbon capture. Supply remains tiny (well under 1% of global jet fuel), but mandates are kicking in: the EU’s ReFuelEU Aviation starts at 2% SAF in 2025 and rises over time, and ICAO’s CORSIA enters its first phase (2024–2026).
• On-road diesel and heavy equipment: Renewable diesel (HVO) from waste oils/fats. HVO is fully drop-in (usable up to 100%), cuts particulate matter and sulfur dramatically, and often reduces lifecycle GHGs by 60–90% when made from wastes like used cooking oil or tallow. It handles cold weather better than biodiesel (FAME) and has near-seamless operability in existing engines. The limiting factor is waste feedstock availability; scaling requires advanced feedstocks beyond used cooking oil.
• Return-to-base fleets near organic waste sources: Renewable natural gas (biomethane/RNG). Capturing methane from dairy manure, wastewater, or landfills and using it in CNG/LNG trucks can yield very low or even negative lifecycle carbon intensities under programs like California’s LCFS, provided methane leakage is tightly controlled. Best suited for refuse trucks, buses, and fleets with depot fueling.
• Gasoline markets (spark-ignition): Sugarcane ethanol (and cellulosic ethanol where available). Sugarcane ethanol, common in Brazil, generally outperforms corn ethanol on lifecycle emissions (often ~60–70% lower than gasoline). Cellulosic ethanol from residues can be even better but remains scarce. Corn ethanol’s climate benefit varies widely with farming practices and land-use change, with recent modeling often in the ~40–50% range on average, though some studies find lower gains; sustainability certifications and farm-level practices matter.
• Shipping: Bio-methanol and bio-LNG (with methane-slip control), plus HVO. New methanol-capable vessels can run on bio-methanol when available; HVO works as a drop-in for marine distillates. Bio-LNG can reduce GHGs but requires rigorous methane leakage management across the supply chain and on-board aftertreatment to control slip.
• Off-grid heat and power: Biogas/biomethane from wastes and residues. Upgraded biogas injected into gas grids or used in CHP can deliver strong climate gains and local air-quality benefits; for solid biomass, modern high-efficiency systems using residues (not whole-tree harvests) are critical to avoid adverse impacts.

The pattern is clear: waste- and residue-based, drop-in fuels are the top performers in most liquid-fuel segments, while biomethane stands out for targeted fleets that can capture methane otherwise vented to the atmosphere.

How the main options stack up

Below is a concise look at the leading biofuels, highlighting their strengths and caveats from a 2025 vantage point.

• Renewable diesel (HVO): Pros—true drop-in up to 100%, strong cold-flow properties, lower PM and typically lower or neutral NOx in modern engines, 60–90% GHG cuts from waste fats/oils. Cons—limited waste feedstocks; risks if shifting to food-grade oils; sustainability scrutiny on certain byproducts (e.g., PFAD).
• Biodiesel (FAME): Pros—mature, widely blended (B5–B20), solid GHG cuts with waste oils, lubricity benefits. Cons—blend limits in many engines, cold-flow issues, potential NOx increases in some duty cycles, storage stability concerns.
• SAF (HEFA, FT, ATJ): Pros—no alternative for long-haul aviation in the near term; drop-in blends approved under ASTM; 50–80%+ GHG cuts depending on pathway. Cons—tight supply and higher cost; waste feedstock constraints; advanced routes need scale-up.
• Ethanol (sugarcane, corn, cellulosic): Pros—sugarcane and cellulosic offer robust GHG cuts; existing blending infrastructure; flex-fuel ecosystems in Brazil. Cons—blend walls (E10/E15 in many markets), vehicle compatibility for higher blends, corn ethanol’s variable climate profile and land-use concerns.
• Biomethane/RNG: Pros—large net climate benefit by avoiding methane emissions; can be carbon-negative; suited to depot-based fleets. Cons—methane leakage must be tightly managed; limited scalable supply tied to waste streams.
• Bio-methanol: Pros—works in methanol-ready ships; potential for low-carbon synthesis from sustainable biogenic CO2 and wastes; simpler storage than LNG. Cons—early-stage supply; needs dedicated engines or conversions; feedstock and certification challenges.
• Algae-based fuels: Pros—long-term potential with high per-acre yields and non-arable land use. Cons—still nascent and expensive; no large-scale commercial deployment yet.

The takeaway: there is no silver bullet. The strongest climate performers use genuine wastes and residues, integrate well with today’s engines, and can scale under robust sustainability certification.

What the data and policies say in 2024–2025

Policy is shaping the market. The EU’s ReFuelEU Aviation requires airlines to start using SAF at 2% in 2025, increasing over time. ICAO’s CORSIA moved from its pilot into the first phase (2024–2026), with broader participation in 2027–2035. In the United States, clean-fuel incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act, including the transition from the 40B SAF credit to the technology-neutral 45Z credit from 2025, are steering investments toward lower-carbon pathways and better farm practices. Low-carbon fuel standards (e.g., California, Oregon, British Columbia) reward fuels with the lowest lifecycle carbon intensity, which has propelled manure-based RNG and waste-derived HVO/SAF.

At the same time, agencies and researchers flag feedstock limits and sustainability risks. The best-performing feedstocks—used cooking oil, tallow, sawmill residues, municipal solid waste—are finite and face global competition. Robust certification (RSB, ISCC, and equivalents), traceability, and fraud prevention are increasingly important, especially as imports rise in response to mandates. For shipping, the IMO’s 2023 strategy sets a trajectory toward net-zero GHG emissions by around 2050 with interim checkpoints, and the EU’s FuelEU Maritime begins tightening greenhouse gas intensity for marine energy from 2025, creating room for HVO, biomethane, and bio-methanol where verified and available.

Practical guidance for buyers and policymakers

For organizations deciding what to buy or support, a few rules of thumb help ensure real-world climate benefits and durable compliance.

1. Prioritize waste- and residue-based fuels with end-to-end traceability and recognized sustainability certification (e.g., ISCC, RSB), and scrutinize high-risk byproducts.
2. Demand transparent lifecycle carbon-intensity data (GREET- or equivalent-based), including land-use change assumptions and methane leakage accounting.
3. Match fuel to duty cycle: use drop-ins (HVO/SAF) where infrastructure and engines require it; consider biomethane for depot-based fleets with suitable engines and supply.
4. Avoid driving indirect land-use change by relying on virgin food-grade oils; plan for feedstock diversification into residues, waste lipids, and advanced pathways.
5. Think portfolio: combine biofuels for hard-to-electrify segments with electrification and, over time, e-fuels where renewable power is abundant.

Following these steps won’t just reduce emissions; it will also lower regulatory risk as standards tighten and verification requirements expand.

Bottom line

No single biofuel wins everywhere. In 2025, the best all-around liquid options are waste- and residue-based drop-ins: renewable diesel (HVO) for road and marine use and SAF for aviation, with biomethane delivering exceptional climate impact for the right fleets and geographies. For gasoline markets, sugarcane ethanol—and cellulosic ethanol where available—offers stronger climate performance than conventional starch-based ethanol. The smartest choice pairs the right fuel to the right job under robust sustainability controls, while planning for scale limits and a broader transition to electrification and, eventually, synthetic e-fuels.

What is the most widely used biofuel in the world?

Ethanol fuel is the most common biofuel worldwide, particularly in Brazil. Alcohol fuels are produced by fermentation of sugars derived from wheat, corn, sugar beets, sugar cane, molasses and any sugar or starch from which alcoholic beverages such as whiskey, can be made (such as potato and fruit waste, etc.).

What is the cleanest biofuel?

Biodiesel is a liquid fuel produced from renewable sources, such as new and used vegetable oils and animal fats and is a cleaner-burning replacement for petroleum-based diesel fuel. Biodiesel is nontoxic and biodegradable and is produced by combining alcohol with vegetable oil, animal fat, or recycled cooking grease.

Is biodiesel or ethanol better?

The study found that biodiesel reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 41% compared with conventional diesel, whereas ethanol yields only a 12% reduction compared with gasoline.

What is the most efficient biofuel production?

DEA assigns an efficiency score to each biofuel, ranking them from best to worst. Renewable diesel was found the best fuel type, followed by biodiesel and ethanol. Waste biomass is preferred over lignocellulosic and 1st generation carbon sources.