FROM COMMUNITY TO HOUSHOLD BIOGAS PLANT · FROM COMMUNITY TO HOUSHOLD BIOGAS PLANT CORE COURSE 5...
Transcript of FROM COMMUNITY TO HOUSHOLD BIOGAS PLANT · FROM COMMUNITY TO HOUSHOLD BIOGAS PLANT CORE COURSE 5...
FROM COMMUNITY TO
HOUSHOLD BIOGAS PLANT
CORE COURSE 5 [Based on field study at Meghauli (7th – 13th May)]
Submitted To : Prof. Dr. Martina Keitsch
Sumbitted By: Bishal Kayastha (072/MSES/453) Parikshya Singh (072/MSES/462) Sudikshya Uprety (072/MSES/456)
OUTLINE 1. Background 2. Introduction 3. Objective 4. Working Methodology 5. Fieldstudy 6. Important interviews for ideas transaction 7. Workshops and its details 8. Reviews 9. Two possibilites for community biogas plant 10. Opportunites/Challenges 11. Adaptations 12. Casestudies : household biogas plant 13. Conclusion 14. Recommendations
Pre- Field Visit
Field Study
Review
Adaptation
Introduction • Adminstration Location: Village, Narayani
Municipality, Chitwan District
• Landscape:
– On the banks of R Rapti and Narayani
– Western gate of Chitwan National Park
– Agricultural fields
– Community forests
• Cultural fabric:
– Settlement of indegenous tharu people
• Nearest City center:
– Narayangarh
– Bharatpur city
• Agriculture:
– Peasant farmers: food crops and cash crops
– Poultry indusrry
R. N
aray
ani
R. R
apti
Megh
auli
Chit
wan
Nat
iona
l Pa
rk
Google map of Meghauli, 2016
INTRODUCTION TO MEGHAULI
BEFORE FIELD STUDY
Co-operated community biogas plant
Agricultural & cattle
farming as main
occupation
Marginalized people
Need for energy &
entrepreneurship
Availability of various bio-degradable
waste
Community cohesion
Waste management
Biogas (Clean Energy)
Organic fertilizer By- product
Socio-economic development
Co-operated community biogas plant
INTRODUCTION
Field: Meghauli to Parsadhap Distance between Meghauli and Parshadhap: 1 km approx Field study at Meghauli: Meghauli tole, Tharu homestay Field study at Parshadhap: Sana tole, Pragati tole, Chetai, poultry farmer Prime Inhabitants: Tharus
MEGAHULI
PARSHADHAP
OBJECTIVE
• To understand the present scenario of Meghauli
• To learn about their problems
• To take feedback upon Co-operated community biogas plant
• To check the feasibility of community biogas plant
• To adapt accordingly
• To understand different opportunities and challenges
LITERATURE INFORMATION
FROM STAKEHOLDER
INTERNET
GENERAL CONCEPT
IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS
POSSIBLE SATISFYING SOLUTIONS
FINAL SOLUTION
FIELD STUDY STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPARION
INFORMATION INSIGHTS
WORKING METHODOLOGY
Iterative process…….
IN FIELD STUDY
• Observation • Informal Interviews with different
stakeholders
• Focus group discussion
• Photographs
• Group discussion
• Note taking
• Briefing
• Workshop
• Enjoy
• Phone talks
INFORMATION GATHERING FROM STAKEHOLDES
PEOPLE PLANNER PROFIT
Occupation Shift Farmer Labor to Transportation & Abroad Economic Status Several Contemporary Houses (Masonry/RCC) MARGINALIZED PEOPLE People’s Voice: No Casual Day to day Activities Technical & Valid Questions Leadership, Distribution Scheme • Development, Importance of
community Participation Community Cohesion
Raw Materials Scarce (No Big Cattle) Behavior Change
(Organic/ Inorganic) Home Compost
Women
Empowerment Active Women Participation Lack of Site for Biogas
Plant
Extra Money making opportunity for marginalized group
Education to the children, Institutional Biogas,
Free meal to students. No canteen Co-producer-Organic
Farm • Organic fertilizer from
biogas • Extensive use of
Chemical Fertilizer. • Misconceptions
“ ICS consumes more firewood than normal stove.
“
“For Biogas Dung is Mandatory.”
Focus Group Discussion, Pragati Tole
Chittai Tole (7 Households) PEOPLE PLANNER PROFIT
Farmers 1 Biogas
User Community
Cohesion
Vegetable Farming ; Chemical Fertilizer
Human Waste + Cattle Waste
Well and Irrigation
Satisfied LPG, Biogas + Firewood Sharing of all
expenses and Benefits
Subsidy Issue : No trust for government and subsidy Scheme
“Fertilizer From Biogas is less efficient than fertilizer from
Direct compost.”
PEOPLE PLANNER PROFIT
Farmer (Maila Dai) Occupation Shift: New
generation least interested in Agriculture and cattle rearing.
No Community Cohesion
Big Cattle Planned and
proceeded for Biogas
Religion DIspute
Sana Tole
“Everything feels wonderful for two days
later there are other issues”
Meghauli Tole( Pajiyar) PEOPLE PLANNER PROFIT
Traditional Tharu Community
Farmers
Community Cohesion
Use of firewood for cooking
• Eyes Burning • Cough Big Cattles, Duck,
Pigeon (i.e. Availability of Raw Materials) Inefficient Back yard
Composting
Need for the clean energy
Identification of new issue
• Illegal Accumulation of Firewood.
• Risk of life: Animal Attack
“It’s very risky. We have to put our life in stake and go to the forest. If any animal attack occurred by misfortune then no one will
respond to it as it’s illegal.”
“Of course it would be wonderful if we had other better option.”
Interview At Prasadhap Bus Stop With Politicians •How will you distribute biogas?
• Is it technically feasible?
• Now in most of the household people are composting waste by themselves why would they sell their waste? Only perhaps if they get biogas or digestate in reasonable price or some other benefits. Give and Take
•How will it be financed?
• How can the one who gives it on lease be assured that there will be no contradictory issues in the future?
• Land Security?? NIMBY
• What if it bounced back and caused come social injustice or dispute in community?
•What are the Economic benefits?
•How will you accumulate raw materials?
Benefit oriented community biogas plant
Social Multipurpose(Eco Park), Meghauli Consumer Group, Tole Sudhar Samuha: Meghauli, Nagar palika, Pragati tole, Prawes Dwar, Radha Krishna Forest Comitte, Jana Jyoti Samuha, Shree Samuha Mahila, Sana Kishan Co-operative, Home Stay, Bishnu ayurved form, Ward citizen forum, Ward nagarik manch
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
STAKEHOLDERS
Opening Speech by Mr. Poudel, Introduction by Mr. Ashim Bajrachraya, Introduction of Local People, Introduction of Students, Presentation on briquette by group 5, Presentation on Biogas by group 4, Videos on Community Biogas, Videos on Briquette, Opening of Platform for Discussion(Joint),Lunch
ACTIVITIES PERFORMED
Date- 10th May, 2016 Location: Sanakishan Co-operative.Meghauli, Chitwan No. of Participants: 38 including us
OUTPUT OF COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
Mainly Participation of the women. Response from Handful of people Stakeholder Voice in Community Biogas Out of their range
Acknowledgement Probably Institutional is more appropriate May be School, Near the forest Site, leadership and investment
Economic and Technical feasibility Investment Social issues Start with small
Youth Club Municipality National Park Politicians
Observations Absent Imp. Stakeholders
Opinions from stakeholders Asked to work upon
FIELD STUDY REVIEW , IDEA
GENERATION AND ANALYSIS
AFTER CONSULTATION WITH MINERGY, AEPC, LUNIVA GREEN DESIGN
[After field study at Kathmandu]
Intial Project:
Co-operated
community
Biogas Plant
POSSIBILITIES 1: COMMUNITY BIOGAS
Meghauli Tole
Tharu Homestay
Meghauli Bus stop
Meghauli Tole, Meghauli: • Single clans : Pajiyar (Mahato Tharu) • 15 households • 6 buffaloes • Average family size: 8 approx • Huge problem of Cooking fuel for women • Ready to transform from traditional firewood to biogas • Overall distance from one end to another end : 50 m (google map)
POSSIBILITIES 2: COMMUNITY BIOGAS
Chetai
Pragati Tole
Sana Tole
Pragati Tole, Parshadhap: •Settlements of Chaudhary tharu •44 households •Average family size: 5 ; Very few big animals •Overall distance from one end to another end : 200 m (google map) • Cooking fuel issues : Rice husk stoves • Income generation :transport and foreign employment, home based small entrepreneur
OPPORTUNITES
Meghauli Tole •Community cohesion •Plenty of site •Cooking Fuel Problem •Possibility of community biogas plant socially
Pragati Tole •leadership of Mr. Bishnu Paudel •Willingness of people •Problems of Cooking fuel •Biogas for common use than individual distribution •Co- operated with School
CHALLENGES
Meghauli Tole •Present feedstock is sufficient for 2 meals for 25 people (AEPC) •Uneven no of animals in families •Leadership was lacking •Preference of individual biogas plant
Pragati Tole •Very few big cattles •Issue of Site •Economic: Investment •Technical challenges in supply of feedstock and biogas plant •Major intervention: sewer lines
ADAPTATION IN PROJECT
Community Family
For subsidy from government, requirement of feasibility study and detail feasibility study from pre-qualified consultancy
For subsidy from government, no pre-qualified list from government for biogas construction. Hence no subsidy Need to keep the cost low for affordability
HOUSEHOLD BIOGAS PLANT • Before, the objectives were
– Waste to energy,
– Energy related entrepreneurship
• Waste to energy biogas plant
• Energy related entrepreneurship Co-operated community biogas plant
• After the field study,
• Affordable Household Biogas Plant for cooking fuel
OPPORTUNITES / CHALLENGES
• Separation of waste: biodegradable & non-biodegradable
• Willingness & eagerness for biogas plant
• National Park, Municipality had already worked
• Limited firewood supply from forest clean energy
• Misconception that biogas slurry is less effective than composted manure
• Low production in winter
• No big cattle rearing
• Reimbursement/ subsidy is not uniform
STAKEHOLDER MAPPING
MOEST
Financial companies
Meet their needs Key player
Least important Show consideration
Interest
Infl
ue
nce
an
d p
ow
er
Narayani Municipality
BSP Nepal
Local cooperatives
Biogas companies
National Park
Women
NPC
AEPC
Local Co-ordinators
CASE STUDY 1: HOMESTAY
•2 ox •10 poultry •6 people •5 kg kitchen waste •guest human waste •Total feedstock: 86kg with water
A FAMILY WITH BIG CATTLES •Type of biogas plant: Modified GGC 2047 •Biogas plant volume= 7.1m3 (4.7 m3 digester volume) •Gas production= 1.6m3/day •Adopted size of biogas plant=6m3 •Gas application: cooking •Can be cooked for 7 people with 2 meals/day
•Saves = 0.72 kg LPG i.e. Rs. 75/day / 8 kg firewood •Payback period= 60000/75 =800 days= 2.2
years •With maintainance cost payback period= 2.5-3
year
AVAILABLE FEEDSTOCK BENEFITS
0.45 kg LPG 2-5 hours depending on burner
5 kg firewood 6 KWhr
1 m3 BIOGAS
CASE STUDY 2: MINA CHAUDHARY
• A family without big cattle
Less feedstock so model as SINTEX, ARTI can be used
Wise technique for organic waste management
Gives rich fertilizer
Construction cost about Rs 30000 for plant with digester 1 m3 and gas holder 0.75m3
Less energy contribution since gas produced is low i.e about 35 L /kg feeding depending on waste properties
Designed for urban areas to minimize the transportation cost of waste in municipality
CONCLUSION
• Process: Intial theory-Reality- Alteration-Revised theory
• Community Biogas plant is not just only community thing
• Transformation is made as per new insights and knowledge
• Household biogas plant looks appropirate and workable for selective families at present
• But then the society is gradually urbanizing
• For sustainable bigoas plant, value of agriculture has to be increased
Demonstration against
misconception
Educating people about
subsidy procedure
Commercialize agriculture & cattle farming
Replace chemical by
organic fertilizer
Co-operative to provide financial
support
Microlevel
Trainings to provide manpower at local
level using local materials
Mesolevel Macrolevel
Proper channeling of subsidies and
adequate figure
Easy loans & procurement
New technology and technical assist
Promote large scale biogas plant
Link biogas initiatives with MFIs , stakeholders
&government at all levels
Ease involvement of donor agencies
RECOMMENDATION
REFERENCE 1. http://w2ebazaar.org.np/downloads 2. (CoRD), C. o. (2013). MANUAL MODEL BIOGAS PLANT. Lalitpur: AEPC. 3. Alternative Energy Promotion Center - NRREP. (2014). BIOGAS
CALCULATION TOOL USER´S GUIDE. 4. ANDRITZ. (n.d.). WBA factsheet:Biogas – An important renewable energy
source. Holländargatan: World Bioenergy Association. 5. CMS. (1996). BIOGAS TECHNOLOGY:A TRAINING MANUAL FOR
EXTENSION. kathmandu: FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION. 6. Forte, D.-I. A. (2011). A glimpse into community and institutional biogas
plants in Nepal. 7. Khanal, B. R., & Jha, A. K. (n.d.). Comparative Analysis of Fiber Reinforced
Plastic (FRP) Biogas Plant with Existing Modified GGC-2047 Model Biogas Plant. 178-183.
8. Lama, L., Lohani, S. P., Lama, R., & Adhikari, J. R. (n.d.). Production of Biogas from kitchen waste. Kathmandu University.
9. R. Ananthakrishnan, K. Sudhakar, Abhishek Goyal, & S. Satya Sravan. (2013). Economic Feasibility Of Substituting LPG With Biogas For MANIT Hostels. International Journal of ChemTech Research, 891-893.
THANKYOU
• Prof. Hans Skotte
• Mr. Ashim Bajracharya
• Mr. Bishnu Paudel, Eco-park
• Ujjwal dai, Youth Club
• Mr. Jeevan Mahato, Homestay
• Group 5
• ALL for listening