Domestic biogas digesters in developing countries: Performance and selection of appropriate design for mass dissemination

Over 44 million biogas digesters of several designs are disseminated in Developing Countries (DCs) to improve access to modern energy services to 2.6 billion people who depend on traditional biomass. In terms of numbers this technology seems to be of high performance and any designs could be mass disseminated everywhere in DCs. This paper has two objectives: (i) to present an overview of domestic digesters performance in DCs, (ii) to describe a Decision Making Model (DMM) that is developed to identify the most appropriate digester design for mass dissemination in a particular region. Performances are characterized in terms of functional state, effectiveness in producing biogas, process efficiency and pathogen reduction: 50% of the digesters in DCs are reported in good functional state and 80% provide 3-4 hours of biogas per day. In terms of process efficiency, 58-94% volatile solids degradation is reported, 96% coliform and 99% Escherichia coli are eliminated. The DMM is based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, the Energy Indicators for Sustainable Development and other performance indicators. It is applied to rural areas of Cameroon to select the digester design among five types. The Nepali GGC2047 design seems to result as the most appropriate for mass dissemination in this country.

[1]  D. Lewis,et al.  Poultry faeces management with a simple low cost plastic digester. , 2009 .

[2]  W. J. Ascough Appropriate technology for development in the third world , 2014 .

[3]  W. Ochola,et al.  Socio-economic constraints to adoption and sustainability of biogas technology by farmers in Nakuru Districts, Kenya , 2009 .

[4]  Ralph E. Steuer,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: The Next Ten Years , 1992 .

[5]  H. von Blottnitz,et al.  Capacity-cost and location-cost analyses for biogas plants in Africa , 2010 .

[6]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[7]  Salvatore Faugno,et al.  Development of bioenergy technologies in Uganda: A review of progress , 2013 .

[8]  Fabrizio Adani,et al.  On-field study of anaerobic digestion full-scale plants (Part II): new approaches in monitoring and evaluating process efficiency. , 2011, Bioresource technology.

[9]  Chandra Venkataraman,et al.  Global atmospheric impacts of residential fuels , 2004 .

[10]  M. Hamdi,et al.  Mesophilic biogas production from fruit and vegetable waste in a tubular digester. , 2003, Bioresource technology.

[11]  Michael R. Templeton,et al.  History and future of domestic biogas plants in the developing world , 2011 .

[12]  Joachim Müller,et al.  Household energy economics in rural Ethiopia: a cost-benefit analysis of biogas energy. , 2012 .

[13]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1990 .

[14]  Changshan Ren,et al.  The progress and prospects of rural biogas production in China. , 2012 .

[15]  Bin Chen,et al.  Inventory analysis for a household biogas system , 2012 .

[16]  I. Ferrer,et al.  Evaluating benefits of low-cost household digesters for rural Andean communities , 2012 .

[17]  Richard Arthur,et al.  Biogas as a potential renewable energy source: A Ghanaian case study , 2011 .