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