See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281088300

Biogas as an alternative to fuelwood for a household in Uleppi sub-county in

Uganda

Article in Agricultural Engineering International : The CIGR e-journal · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

11 961

3 authors:

Emmanuel Menya Yunus Alokore

Gulu University (GU) Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
14 PUBLICATIONS 173 CITATIONS 5 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ben Ebangu
Gulu University (GU)
2 PUBLICATIONS 14 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Technological Applications of Rice Husks for Industrial Applications View project

design of solar dryers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Emmanuel Menya on 30 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 50 March, 2013 Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 15, No.1

Biogas as an alternative to fuelwood for a household in Uleppi

sub-county in Uganda

E. Menya*, Y. Alokore, B. O. Ebangu

(Department of Biosystems Engineering, Gulu University, Uganda)

Abstract: Over 93% of Uganda’s population relys on wood fuel in form of either charcoal or fuelwood for cooking. Uleppi
sub-county in Arua district is a typical example of such areas in Uganda where households entirely use fuelwood to meet their
energy demand for cooking. The use of fuelwood is however associated with the use of inefficient stoves that accelerate
deforestation thus increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The use of fuelwood is also associated with a smoky
environment that has adverse health impacts on women and children who spend long hours in the kitchen. In addition, women
and children spend long hours gathering fuelwood which significantly reduces farm productivity. This project was therefore
aimed at design and construction of a biogas plant ideal for a household in Uleppi sub-county as an alternative to fuel wood.
The research involved sizing of the floating drum biogas digester and gasholder, economic analysis as well as estimating CO2
emission reduction. For a household with an average of three heads of cattle managed in a free range system, the biogas
digester and gasholder were sized as 1.4 m3 and 0.29 m3 respectively with 0.48 m3 of biogas produced per day. At this
capacity, it was found that biogas utilization can reduce individual household consumption of wood fuel by 66.32% for a
household size of five persons. The carbon emission reduction for all households was estimated at 432 tons of CO2 per year.
The benefit-cost ratio was found to be 3.26, hence worthy to invest in the biogas technology. The capital recovery period for
459 USD of the biogas plant installation with an economic life of 15 years at 23 % interest rate was found to be two years.

Keywords: biogas, carbon dioxide, emissions, fuelwood, floating drum, Uganda

Citation: Menya, E., Y. Alokore, and B. O. Ebangu. 2013. Biogas as an alternative to fuelwood for a household in Uleppi
sub-county in Uganda. Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal, 15(1): 50－58.

way primarily for cooking, leading to the unsustainable

1 Introduction
utilization of Uganda’s forestry resources. The ongoing
Uganda is one of the countries with the least access to pressure on the remaining resources, including forest
modern energy services. According to the Ministry of reserves, is worsened by the ever increasing population
Energy and Mineral Development (2003), over 93% of growth currently approximately 3.5% per annum (UBOS,
Uganda’s primary energy needs are covered by biomass 2012).
(i.e. firewood and charcoal) whereas 6% is produced Uleppi sub-county is located in Arua district, West
through the combustion of fossil fuels (transport and Nile sub-region of the Republic of Uganda. According
industry) and only 1% consists of electricity out of to the Arua District State of Environment report (2007)
hydro-power and thermal power plants (burning oil and the economic activities of the people of this sub-county
diesel). However, biomass which is by far the most include cattle keeping, charcoal production and farming.
important energy carrier is used in a highly inefficient According to housing and population census (2002),
Uleppi has a population of 6240. Figure 1 is a map of
Received date: 2012-10-03 Accepted date: 2013-01-04
Arua district showing location of Uleppi sub-county.
* Corresponding author: E. Menya, Department of Biosystems
Engineering, Gulu University, P.O. Box 166, Gulu-Uganda. Fuel wood in the unprocessed form or as charcoal is
Email: [email protected], [email protected]. the most widely used form of energy in Uleppi
 March, 2013 Biogas as an alternative to fuelwood for a household in Uleppi sub-county in Uganda Vol. 15, No.1 51

sub-county due to the fact that fuel wood is readily 1.2 Digestive process
available and in most cases it is free to most households. Anaerobic digestion is a four-stage process that
It is also perceived to be the cheapest form of energy decomposes organic materials in the absence of oxygen,
available to the low income households. However, the producing biogas as a waste product as is shown below:
practice of charcoal and wood production has led to Stage 1: Hydrolysis: The waste materials of plant
deforestation responsible for increased carbon emissions and animal origins consist mainly of carbohydrates, lipids,
into the atmosphere. In addition, women and children proteins and inorganic materials which are acted on
spend long hours gathering firewood, which significantly means of enzymes to low-molecular compounds
reduces farm productivity. Besides, the use of fire wood including monosaccharides, amino acids, fatty acids and
results in smoky cooking environment that has adverse water. The bacteria enzymes engaged in hydrolysis
health impacts on children and women. Biogas may be further decompose the substrate components to small
a sustainable alternative to wood fuel in Uleppi water-soluble molecules, polymers turn into monomers.
sub-county since cattle keeping is one of the major Stage 2: Acidification: The monomer such as
economic activities for most households. glucose which is produced in Stage 1 is fermented under
anaerobic condition into various acids with the help of
enzymes produced by the acid forming bacteria. At this
stage, the acid-forming bacteria break down molecules of
six atoms of carbon (glucose) into molecules of less
atoms of carbon (acids) which are in more reduced state
glucose. The principal acids produced in this process
are acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid and ethanol.
Stage 3: Acetogenesis: In this stage, acetogenic
bacteria produce initial products (i.e. acetic acid, carbon
dioxide and hydrogen) for methane formation from
organic acids.
Stage 4: Methanization: The products of Stage 3 are
processed by methanogenic bacteria to produce methane.
The reaction that takes place in the process of methane
Figure 1 Map of Arua showing location of Uleppi sub-county production is called methanization and is expressed by
(Arua DDP, 2002)
the following Equations (Karki et al., 1984).

1.1 Properties of biogas CH3COOH(aq)  CH 4 (g)  CO2 (g) (1)

Biogas is a mixture of methane (CH4) and carbon 2CH 3CH 2 OH(aq)  CO 2 (g)  CH 4 (g)  2CH 3COOH(aq)
dioxide (CO2) as its chief constituents. It also has traces (2)
of hydrogen sulfide (H2S), oxygen (O2), ammonia (NH3), CO (g)  4H 2 (g)  CH 4 (g)  2H 2 O (3)
hydrogen (H2) and water vapor (H2O). Table 1 shows
1.3 Factors influencing biogas production
the composition of biogas.
There are many facilitating and inhibiting factors that
Table 1 Composition of biogas (Yadava et al., 1981) play a role in biogas production process as discussed
Substances Symbol Percentage below:
Methane CH4 50 - 70 pH: The optimum biogas production is achieved
Carbon Dioxide CO2 30 - 40 when the pH value of inputs mixture in the digester is
Hydrogen H2 5 - 10
between 6 and 7. Methanogenic bacteria are very
Nitrogen N2 1-2
Water vapor H2O 0.3 sensitive to pH and do not thrive below a value of 6.5.
Hydrogen Sulphide H2S Traces Later, as the digestion process continues, concentration of
 52 March Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 15, No.1

NH4 increases due to digestion of nitrogen which can means of rotational spraying of fresh influent.
increase the pH value to above 8. When the methane Toxicity: Minerals ions, heavy metals and detergents
production level is stabilized, the pH range remains are some of the toxic materials that inhibit the normal
buffered between 7.2 and 8.2. growth of pathogens in the digester. Small quantity of
Temperature: The methane producing bacteria (i.e. mineral ions (e.g. sodium, potassium, calcium,
thermophilic and mesophilic bacteria) depend on magnesium, ammonium and sulphur) also stimulates the
temperature. The thermophilic bacteria thrive at growth of bacteria, while very heavy concentration of
temperatures between 47-55℃ whereas the mesophilic these ions will have toxic effect. Detergents including
bacteria operate best between 27℃ and 38℃ (Lund et al., soap, antibiotics, organic solvents, etc., inhibit the
1966). activities of methane producing bacteria and addition of
Loading rate: This is the amount of raw materials these substances in the digester should be avoided
fed per unit volume of digester capacity per day. About (Chengdu Biogas Research Institute, 1989).
3
6 kg of dung per m volume of digester is recommended This research was therefore aimed at design and
in case of cow dung fed biogas plant. Overfeeding leads construction of a biogas plant ideal for a household in
to accumulation of acids which inhibit methane Uleppi sub-county as an alternative to fuelwood. The
production. On the other hand, under feeding can lead research involved sizing of the floating drum biogas
to low gas production. digester and gasholder, economic analysis as well as
Retention time: This is the average period within estimating CO2 emission reduction. The project targeted
which a given quantity of input remains in the digester to the use of cattle dung as feedstock for the biogas digester.
be acted by the methanogens. According to Chengdu
2 Materials and methods
Biogas Research Institute (1989) in a cow dung plant, a
retention time of 40 to 50 days is desirable. Thus, a 2.1 Design criterion
digester should have a volume of 40 to 50 times the slurry The design involved sizing both the biogas digester
added daily. The retention time is also dependent on the and gas holder as discussed below.
temperature; the higher the temperature, the lower the 2.1.1 Sizing the biogas digester
retention time (Lagrange, 1979). Due to scarcity of data on the number of cattle in
Nutrients: The maintenance of optimum Uleppi sub-county, an estimate was made using data of
microbiological activity in the digester is crucial to gas Arua district where Uleppi sub-county is located. There
generation and consequently is related to nutrient are 18 sub-counties and 65,936 heads of cattle in Arua
availability. Two of the most important nutrients are district. The number of households in Uleppi
carbon and nitrogen and a critical factor for raw material sub-county is 1,459 (Arua District State of Environment
choice is the overall C/N ratio. Adequate water is Report, 2007). The assumption was made that each of
necessary for the physiological functions of the the sub-county had an average population of 1,459
microorganisms. In case of cow dung fed digester, the households.
typical mixing ratio is 1 water: 1 dung to provide slurry Average number of cattle per household 
of specific density 1.089. Total number of cattle in the district
Stirring: When solid materials not well shredded are Total households in the district
present in the digester, gas generation may be impeded by 65936
 =2.5≈ 3 (heads of cattle) household-1
the formation of a scum that is comprised of these 1459  18
low-density solids that are enmeshed in a filamentous A zero grazed local cow produces an average of 10 kg
matrix. In time the scum hardens, disrupting the of dung per day. However, in Uleppi sub-county, cattle
digestion process and causing stratification. Agitation is kept using the free range system. It was assumed that
can be done either mechanically with a plunger or by only 50% of the dung is available for biogas production.
 March, 2013 Biogas as an alternative to fuelwood for a household in Uleppi sub-county in Uganda Vol. 15, No.1 53

Input data tank helps to prevent spillage of slurry during mixing thus
Dung available as a feedstock for the digester = improving operational convenience to the household.
-1
50%×10 = 5 kg (head of cattle) The volume of the mixing tank was computed as follows:
Total available biomass per household = 5×3 = Volume of mixing tank = 1.5×Vs =1.5×0.0275 = 0.04 m3
15 kg day-1 The most commonly used shape for mixing tanks is
Cow dung is mixed with water at a ratio of 1:1 to the cylindrical shape. Choosing arbitrarily a depth, h of
form slurry of specific density 1.089 (NABARD, 2007) 0.4 m, the diameter of the mixing tank was computed
The substrate input for the digester was calculated using Equation (6) above.
according to Equation (4) as is shown below:   d 2  0.4
0.04  ; Diameter, d= 0.36 m.
Substrate input, Sd  Biomass (B)  Water (W) (4) 4

= 15 + 15=30 kg 2.1.2 Sizing the gas holder

30 The size of the gas holder depends on the gas
Volume of substrate, Vs =  0.0275 m3
1089 production and the consumption. The gas production
The volume of the digester was determined using capacity depends on the gas yield of a given substrate.
Equation (5): Table 2 shows the gas yields, Gy per kilogram of feed
Vd = Vs × RT (5) stocks including cow dung. The gasholder capacity, Vg
3
where, Vd is the volume of biogas digester, m ; Sd is the was computed using Equation (7) while daily gas
substrate input, kg; RT is the retention time, days. production, G was computed using Equation (8).
According to Chengdu Biogas Research Institute Vg = 0.6×G (7)
3
(1989), cow dung biogas plants require retention time of where, Vd is volume of the gas holder, m ; G is daily gas
40 to 50 days. A retention time of 50 days was used in production, m3.
the design. Daily gas production, G = Gy × Sd (8)
3
Vd = 0.0275 × 50 = 1.38 m3 G = 0.032 × 15 = 0.48 m , which is gas produced per day.
The volume of the biogas digester was found to be Therefore, the volume of gas holder, Vg = 0.6 × 0.48 =
3
1.38 m . However, the digester should be constructed 0.29 m3.
slightly above the ground to prevent runoff water from Table 2 Gas production potential of various types of dung
flowing into the biogas digester. Thus the volume of the (Updated Guidebook on Biogas Development, 1984)
digester was taken as 1.4 m3 slightly above the 1.38 m3 Types of dung Gas production per kg dung/m3
obtained from computations. Cattle (cows and bullocks) 0.023 - 0.040

KVIC (1993) recommends a depth to diameter ratio Pig 0.040 - 0.059

Poultry (Chickens) 0.065 - 0.116
of between 1.0 and 1.3 is suitable for all digesters.
Human 0.020 - 0.028
Using h:d ratio of 1.1, the Equation (6) was used to
compute the diameter, d and height, h of the biogas KVIC (1993) recommends a diameter of the
digester. gasholder of 15 cm less than that of the biogas digester.
 d 2h This allows for movement of the gas holder up and the
Vd  (6)
4 down without rubbing itself on the biogas digester.
  d  1.1d
2
Thus the diameter, dg of the gas holder was computed
1.4  ; Diameter, d = 1.17 m; Depth;
4 using the Equation (9) while the corresponding height, hg
h = 1.1×1.17 = 1.29 m was determined using Equation (10).
KVIC (1993) recommends that the maximum height dg = d - 0.15 (9)
of the inlet tank should be 1 m. The volume of the inlet d h
2
g g
Vg  (10)
tank was placed at 50% more than the daily available 4
volume of feedstock, Vs. This capacity of the mixing where, dg is the diameter of the gas holder, m; hg is the
 54 March Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 15, No.1

height of the gas holder, m. Figure 2 shows a dimensioned sectional view of the
dg = 1.17 - 0.15 = 1.02 m biogas plant while Figure 3 shows the plan view of the
hg = 0.35 m biogas plant while.

Figure 2 Sectional view of the biogas plant

Figure 3 Plan view of the biogas plant

2.2 Estimating carbon emission saving 2.2.2 Determining the amount of wood replaced by
The amount of carbon emissions saved depends on biogas
the amount of wood fuel replaced by biogas, the net The amount of wood, Mw replaced by biogas depends
calorific value of wood fuel and the carbon emission on the energy produced by the biogas plant and
factor of the wood fuel. combustion efficiencies, ηw of biogas stove and wood fuel
2.2.1 Determining the energy produced by the biogas stove used respectively. The values of the efficiencies
plant are shown in Table 3. The amount of wood fuel offset
The energy produced by the biogas plant depends on by biogas and total amount of wood, My replaced yearly
the gas produced and the net calorific value, NCVb of by targeted households was estimated as shown below.
biogas. Since the average net calorific value of biogas is Since the conventional biogas stove is 55 % efficient,
-3
20 MJ m , the energy produced by the biogas plant was then the useful energy is equivalent to: 0.55×2.67 = 1.47
determined using Equation (11). kWh day-1.
Daily energy production, E = G × NCV (11) Since the three stone stove is only 8% efficient, it will
= 0.48×20 = 9.6 MJ require more wood to produce the same energy as that
-1
= 2.67 kWh day generated from biogas as is shown in Equation (12).
 March, 2013 Biogas as an alternative to fuelwood for a household in Uleppi sub-county in Uganda Vol. 15, No.1 55

The total wood replaced by biogas per day was obtained total benefits and the costs incurred by the household and
from Equation (13): then preparing a cash flow. The cash flow diagram was
Energy output used to establish the benefit ratio and then the return
 (12)
Energy input period.
Energy output 1.47 2.3.1 Gains from the gas produced
Energy input (kWh)  
 0.08 It was estimated that the biogas produced replaces
 18.38 kWh day -1
4.41 kg of wood fuel per day per household. The gains
Amount of wood replaced by biogas (kg)  of the gas produced were estimated as is shown below:
Energy input (J s )  3600 s  1000
-1 Assumptions made:
Calorific value (GJ ton -1 ) (13) Market price of wood in Uleppi sub-county is
According to Jenkins (1993), the calorific value of 0.2 USD per kg
wood is 15 GJ ton-1. Daily saving on wood fuel per household = 4.41 × 0.2
Amount of wood replaced by biogas = 0.88 USD
18.38  1000  1000  3600 Annual saving on woodfuel per household = 0.88 ×
= = 4.41(kgwood)day-1
15  109 365 ≈ 321 USD
Total amount of wood, My replaced yearly by targeted 2.3.2 Quantification of manure from the biogas plant
households = 1459×4.41×365 = 2349.11 tons year . -1 NABARD (2007) reported that one tone of fresh dung
produces 240 kg of manure while the NPK content of
Table 3 Efficiency of stoves using different fuels
biogas slurry is 1.4%, 1% and 0.8% respectively. Given
(Perera et al., 2002)
that the loading rate is 15 kg day-1, the annual loading rate
Type of stove Efficiency/% Fuel type
is 365×15 = 5475 kg year-1 = 5.475 ton year-1.
Three stone stove 8.0 Fuel wood, agric-residues
Single and two pot mud stove 13.0 Fuel wood, agric-residues Therefore total amount of manure produced = 5.475×240
Anagi stove 1 & 2 18.0 Fuel wood = 1.314 ton year-1. Table 4 below shows the amount of
Sarvodaya two pot stove 22.0 Fuel wood
NPK produced by the biogas plant annually.
CISIR’S single pot stove 24.0 Fuel wood
IDB stove 20.0 Fuel wood
Table 4 Amount of NPK available in the manure
NERD stove 27.0 Fuel wood
Convention biogas stove 55.0 Biogas Nutrient Composition/% Quantity of nutrient/kg year-1

Ceylon charcoal stove 30.0 Charcoal N 1.4 18.4

P 1.0 13.1
K 0.8 10.5
2.2.3 Determining the carbon emissions saved
Total 3.2 42.0
The carbon emission savings obtained by
implementation of the biogas project depends on the The market price of NPK fertilizer in Uganda is
amount of wood fuel offset, net calorific value of wood 2 USD per kg. Annual savings by the household on
fuel and the carbon emission factor of wood fuel. The manure alone = 2×42 = 84 USD per year.
carbon emission savings, ER were therefore computed 2.3.3 Payback period of the biogas plant
using Equation (14). The capital cost of the biogas plant is 459 USD. The
Carbon emission saving, ER = Mw × EFw (14) details of the cost estimation of the biogas plant are
According to DEFRA (2010), the carbon emissions indicated in the bill of quantity in Table 5.
factor, EFw of wood pellets is 183.9 kg CO2 per tonne of The major operation costs were found as annual
wood fuel. painting, and de-rusting of the gasholder. KVIC (1993)
Total emissions reduction, ER = 2349.11 × 183.9 = recommended that the gasholder should be replaced after
-1
432002.9 kg CO2 per year = 432 (tons CO2) year . five years otherwise the gasholder will become prone to
2.3 Cost benefit analysis of the biogas plant leakages. The annual cost on de-rusting and painting
The cost benefit analysis was done by estimating the was estimated at 23 USD. However the cost of
 56 March Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 15, No.1

replacing the gasholder was estimated at 183 USD. The net present value was computed using Equation
Table 6 summarizes the costs and benefits of installation (15).
and running the biogas plant.  (1  i) N  1 
P  A N 
(15)
Table 5 Cost estimate of the biogas plant  i(1  i ) 

S/No. Item Unit Quantity

Unit Cost Total cost For benefits; the net present value was computed as:
(USD) (USD)
 (1.23) 4  1 
1 Gasholder P1-4  382  4 
 $ 935.24
Galvanized Iron sheet m2 3.5 32 112  0.23* (1.23) 
Horse pipe m 6 4 24
199
Valve, nipples and seal Inch 1 7.6 7.6 P5   $ 70.69
1.235
Ring clamp N/A 2 1.2 2.4
Paint L 4 5.6 22.4  (1.23) 4  1 
P6-9  382  4 
 $ 935.24
Labor Days 3 4.8 14.4
 0.23* (1.23) 
Subtotal 182.8
935.24
2 Digestion tank P69   $ 332.2
1.235
Earth work Days 2 3.2 6.4
Bricks 500 0.12 60 199
P5   $ 25.11
Coarse aggregate m3 0.4 25 10 1.2310
Fine aggregate m3 4 11.2 44.8
 (1.23)5  1 
Cement 50 kg bags 5 13 65 P11-15  382  5 
 $ 1070.93
PVC pipes and plugs m 6 2.8 16.8  0.23* (1.23) 
Labor Days 4 7.2 28.8
1070.93
Subtotal 231.8 P11 15   $135.12
1.2310
3 Biogas stove 1 44 44

Grand total 459

Total net present worth of benefits = 135.12+25.11+
332.2+70.69+935.24 = $ 1498.36
Table 6 Costs and the gains of the biogas plant The benefit-cost ratio was determined using Equation
Expenditure Amount/USD (16).
Capital 459
Present worth of benefits
Annual cost of painting and de-rusting 23 Benefit-cost ratio 
Present worth of costs
Gasholder replacement after every 5 years 183
Annual gains 1498.36
  3.26 (16)
Wood saving 321 459
Manure 84
Since the benefit-cost ratio is greater than one, then
Total annual gains 405
adopting biogas technology is a profitable venture hence
Figure 4 shows the net-cash flow for the costs and worthy to invest in.
benefits associated with installation, operation and The payback period of the biogas plant was obtained
maintenance of the biogas plant over its economic life of by finding the number of years for which the net present
15 years provided maintenance and repair are carried out benefits of the project were equal to the net present costs
regularly. An assumption was made that the household of the project.
acquires a loan of 459 USD from a bank that charges an The net benefit per year is given by:
interest of 23 % per annum.
Pi (1  i ) N
A
(1  i ) N  1
1498.36  0.23  (1.23)15
A
(1.23)15  1
A = $ 360.79
 (1.23N  1) 
360.79   N 
 459
Figure 4 Net cash flow diagram of running the biogas plant
 0.23  (1.23 ) 
 March, 2013 Biogas as an alternative to fuelwood for a household in Uleppi sub-county in Uganda Vol. 15, No.1 57

1.23N = 1.41 biogas digester can hold the slurry for 50 days which is
N = 1.7 years sufficient enough to exhaust the biogas content of the
The cost benefit analysis of the biogas plant shows slurry before it flows in to the effluent storage tank where
that the capital investment of 459 USD can be recovered it is kept as manure.
in about two years. There are also incidental benefits of 3.2 Daily gas and energy production
hygienic improvement and carbon emissions saving The gas production rate of the biogas plant was
which have not been reflected in the economic analysis. estimated at 0.48 m3 day-1. The biogas produced can
provide useful energy up to 1.47 kWh day-1 using a
3 Results and discussion
conventional stove with 55% energy efficiency. The
Table 7 shows a summary of results obtained from biogas is therefore able to replace 4.41 kg of wood per
sizing of the digester and the expected outputs resulting day per household which previously used the traditional
from operation of the biogas digester. The expected three stone stove of 8% efficiency. Therefore for a
outputs include daily gas production, daily energy household with an average population of five persons and
production, fuelwood offset and annual carbon emission average per capita consumption of 1.33 (kg wood) day-1
saving. (UIA, 2007), the total consumption per household per day
would be 6.65 kg firewood. The biogas potential of per
Table 7 Results obtained from sizing of the digester and the
household from cattle dung is therefore able to meet up to
expected outputs resulting from operation of the biogas
66.32% of the household energy.
digester
3.3 Carbon emissions reduced
Quantity Unit Result
The researchers found out that the implementation of
Volume of digester m3 1.4
biogas projects in Uleppi sub-county results in annual
Volume of gas holder m3 0.29
Daily Gas produced m3 day-1 0.48
carbon emission savings of 432 tons. The carbon
Energy produced kWh day-1 2.67 emissions saving from biogas projects vary depending on
Wood fuel offset kg day-1 4.41 the fuel replaced by biogas and the efficiency of the
Annual Carbon emission saving tons year-1 432
stoves used.

3.1 Biogas plant size 4 Conclusions

The major aspects of the size of the biogas plant are If the targeted households in Uleppi sub-county
the size of the digester and the gas holder. The substrate adopted the biogas production technology, numerous
available and the gas production per day were assessed benefits will be achieved including income saving,
and the appropriate digester and gasholder size for Uleppi environmental benefits such as carbon emissions
3 3
sub-county were found to be 1.4 m and 0.29 m reduction, health benefits, and increased farm
respectively. The daily gas production was found to be productivity among others. The biogas technology is a
3 -1
0.48 m day . At this capacity, the gasholder provides profitable venture that would improve the livelihoods of
enough storage for the biogas without any wastage. The the people in the area if adopted.

References
Arua District Local Government. 2008. District Development Chengdu, China.
Plan, 2008/09 - DEFRA/DECC. 2010. GHG Conversion Factors for Company
2010/2011 Reporting August 2010.
Arua District State of Environment Report. 2007. Chengdu Duggal, K. N. 2002. Elements of environmental engineering,
Biogas Research Institute (1989), Biogas Technology in China. 6th Edition. Rajendra Ravindra Printers (PVT) Ltd, New
 58 March Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 15, No.1

Delhi. Mechanical Engineering, University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka.

Jenkins, B. 1993. Properties of Biomass, Appendix to Biomass Samer, M. 2012. Biogas Plant Constructions, pp.343-368. In:
Energy Fundamentals, EPRI, Report TR-102107, January. Biogas, S. Kumar (ed.), ISBN 978-953-51-0204-5. Rijeka,
Karki, A. B., and K. Dixit. 1984. Biogas Field book. Croatia: InTech. Available at: http://www.intechopen.com/
Sahayogi Press, Kathmandu, Nepal. books/biogas/biogas-plant- Constructions
KVIC. 1993. Khadi and V.I Commission and its Samer, M. 2010. A software program for planning and
Non-Conventional Energy Programmes. KVIC, Bombay, designing biogas plants. Transactions of the ASABE, 53(4):
India. 1277-1285.
Lagrange, B. 1979. Biomethane 2: Principles-Techniques Uganda Bureau of Statistics. 2012. Housing and population
Utilization". EDISUD, La Calade, 13100 Aix-en-Provence, census report. Kampala, Uganda.
France. Uganda Bureau of Statistics, 2002. Housing and population census
Lund, M. S., S. S. Andersen, and M. Torry-Smith. 1996. report. Kampala, Uganda.
Building of a flexibility bag biogas digester in Tanzania. Uganda Investment Authority (UIA) 2007. Forestry Sector
Student Report. Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen. Profile
Ministry of energy and mineral resources. 2003. Participants Updated guidebook on biogas development-energy resources
hand book on Environmental management for the Higher development series. 1984. No. 27. United Nations. New York,
Local Governments (HLGs). Kampala, Uganda. USA.
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD). Yadava, L. S., and P. R. Hesse. 1981. The development and use
2007. Biogas. Accessed at: http://www.nabard.org/ of biogas technology in rural areas of Asia (A status report
modelbankprojects/biogas.asp. 1981). Improving soil fertility through organic recycling,
Perera KKCK, Sugathapala AGT, 2002. Fuelwood-fired cook FAO/UNDP Regional Project RAS/75/004, Project Field
stoves in Sri Lanka and related issues. Department of Document No. 10.

View publication stats