TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING PULCHOWK CAMPUS

Design and Fabrication of a Kitchen Waste Based Biogas Plant and Testing With Different Feed Materials

by Ambish Kaji Shakya Kundan Lal Das Ravi Shah

A PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING LALITPUR, NEPAL

MARCH, 2009

COPYRIGHT

The authors have agreed that the library, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering may make this report freely available for inspection. Moreover, the authors have agreed that permission for extensive copying of this project report for scholarly purpose may be granted by the professor(s) who supervised the project work recorded herein or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department wherein the project report was done. It is understood that the recognition will be given to the authors of this project and to the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering in any use of the material of this report. Copying or publication or the other use of this report for financial gain without approval of the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering and author’s written permission is prohibited.

Request for permission to copy or to make any other use of the material in this report in whole or in part should be addressed to:

Head Department of Mechanical Engineering Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering Lalitpur, Kathmandu Nepal

 

2

TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING PULCHOWK CAMPUS DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

The undersigned certify that they have read, and recommended to the Institute of Engineering for acceptance, a project report entitled " Design and fabrication of a kitchen waste based biogas plant and testing with different feed materials" submitted by Ambish Kaji Shakya, Kundan Lal Das and Ravi Shah, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor Engineering.

________________________________________ Supervisor, Dr. Rajendra Shrestha Department of Mechanical Engineering

_____________________________________________ External Examiner, Mr. Prakash Lamichhane Manager (Chief – Research and Development) Biogas Sector Partnership – Nepal

___________________________________________________ Committee Chairperson Dr. Rajendra Shrestha Department of Mechanical Engineering

_____________________

Date:

 

3

ABSTRACT

The report deals with the test carried with different kitchen wastes produced majorly in kitchens of particularly Kathmandu valley. The feasibility study of generation of biogas from these kitchen wastes was done. The amount of kitchen wastes generated per head per day is 0.468 kg. 20 L jar biogas plant was used for the experiments. Different wastes like cabbage leaves, potato, rice, and banana peels were tested. Half a kg of cow-dung as an activator was used in the plant to generate biogas. The total of about 14 L feed was fed to each different digester. The measurement of the biogas production was done. Methane content by volume was found to be low. Low gas productions due to small jar make it feasible only for testing purpose. The low temperatures, high temperature fluctuation, over acidification were some of the problems observed during testing. However, the methane content was found increasing gradually. This report is expected to provide future reference to biogas testing with potential kitchen wastes.

 

4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to express our sincere gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Rajendra Shrestha for supervising our project work

We remain indebted to Prof. Jagan Nath Shrestha and Center for Energy Studies family for immense help in providing all the equipment without which our project was impossible. We would like to thank Mr. Mahaboob siddiki sir of BSP for his valuable time giving knowledge on biogas concepts.

We would like to thank Prof Dr. Bhakta Bahadur Ale for his valuable suggestions. Also we would like to thank Associate Prof. Ram Chandra Sapkota for giving valuable suggestions in project work.

We would like to thank Mr Prakash Lamichhane for helping us by making corrections in report and giving suggestions. Also we would like to thank BSP-Nepal for helping in providing information and instrument related to biogas.

We are indebted to Mr. Nilesh Pradhan, Mr. Pradeep Man Shrestha and Mr. Harka Man Limbu for providing full co-operation in the project work. Without them our project work was very difficult to accomplish. Also we would like to thank Mr. Jatin Man Amatya for his help.

We would like to thank Mr. Ram Krishna Karki from Kathmandu Municipality for providing required information on the condition of kitchen wastes in Kathmandu Municipality.

 
  5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Copyright ....................................................................................................................... 2 Approval Page ................................................................................................................ 3 Abstract .......................................................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ 5 Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... 6 List of Tables ............................................................................................................... 10 List of Figures .............................................................................................................. 11 List of Symbols ............................................................................................................ 12 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................... 13

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 14 1.1 Problem/Background ............................................................................................ 14 1.2 Historical Background of Biogas Technology in Nepal ....................................... 16 1.3 Objective ................................................................................................................ 17 1.4 Methodology .......................................................................................................... 18 1.5 Limitations ............................................................................................................. 18   CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................. 19 2.1Introduction ............................................................................................................ 19 2.2Process of the Biogas Production .......................................................................... 19 2.2.1 Hydrolysis ....................................................................................................... 20 2.2.2 Acetogenisis .................................................................................................... 20 2.2.3 Methanogenesis................................................................................................ 20 2.3 Biogas Plant System ............................................................................................. 21 2.4 Factors Affecting Biogas Generation .................................................................... 22
  6

2.5 Types of Biogas Plant ........................................................................................... 23 2.5.1 On the Basis of the Construction of Plant ....................................................... 24 2.5.1.1 Floating Drum Digester ................................................................................ 24 2.5.1.2 Fixed Dome Digester ................................................................................... 25 2.5.2 On the Basis of Types of Feeding ..................................................................... 27 2.5.2.1 Batch Digester .............................................................................................. 28 2.5.2.2 Continuous Digester ..................................................................................... 28 2.6 Currently Existing Other Biogas Plant ................................................................. 29 2.6.1 Puxin Biogas Plant .......................................................................................... 29 2.6.2 Agri / Kitchen Waste Based Biogas Plant ...................................................... 30 2.6.3 ARTI Biogas Plant .......................................................................................... 32 2.6.4Experimental Model Biogas Plant by Ajay Karki ........................................... 34

CHAPTER THREE: CONSTRUCTION AND FABRICATION .............................. 36 3.1 Idea Generation ..................................................................................................... 36 3.2 Idea Screening ....................................................................................................... 38 3.3 Selection ................................................................................................................ 39 3.4 Detail List of Selected Parts .................................................................................. 40 3.5 Description of Fabrication .................................................................................... 41 3.6 Alternative Design ................................................................................................ 42 3.6.1 List of Parts .................................................................................................. 43 3.6.2 Fabrication Method for Alternative Batch Type .......................................... 43 3.7 Insulation and Heating System ....................................................................... 44

CHAPTER FOUR : MATERIAL AND METHODS ................................................. 45 4.1 Basis of Material Selection .................................................................................... 45 4.1.1 Volume ........................................................................................................... 45

 

7

4.1.2 Kinds of Wastes ........................................................................................... 45 4.1.2.2Rice ............................................................................................................. 46 4.1.2.3Potato .......................................................................................................... 47 4.1.2.4Banana......................................................................................................... 47 4.2 Charging of Plants ................................................................................................. 47 4.2.1 Continuous Digester ..................................................................................... 47 4.2.2 Batch Digester .............................................................................................. 48 4.3 Measuring Methods .............................................................................................. 49

CHAPTER FIVE : KITCHEN WASTE SURVEY .................................................... 52 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 52 5.2 Factors Influencing Kitchen Waste Generation ........................................ 52 5.3 Limitation .................................................................................................. 52 5.4 Research Methodology .............................................................................. 52 5.5 Result of the Study ..................................................................................... 53

CHAPTER SIX : GAS PRODUCTION AND ANALYSIS ....................................... 54 6.1 Experiment in 200L Drum ........................................................................ 54 6.2 Experiment in 20 L Jars ............................................................................ 56 6.2.1 From Banana Peels (Plant I) ....................................................... 56 6.2.2 From Cabbage Leaves (Plant II) ................................................. 57 6.2.3 From Rice (Plant III)................................................................... 58 6.2.4 From Potato (Plant IV)................................................................ 60 6.2.5 From Banana Peels (Plant V) ...................................................... 61

 

8

CHAPTER SEVEN: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ......................................................... 63 CHAPTER EIGHT: LIMITATIONS .......................................................................... 70 CHAPTER NINE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION.......................... 71

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 73

APPENDIX A: Photos .......................................................................................... 75 APPENDIX B: Construction Procedure of 20L Jar Biogas Plant ........................ 76 APPENDIX C: Physiological Properties of Constituent Gases of Biogas ........... 77 APPENDIX D: Biogas Plant-GGC 2047 Model and Dimensions of Different Components of Various Sized .............................................................................. 78 APPENDIX E: Gas Collection through Downward Displacement of Water ....... 79 APPENDIX F: Survey Formats and Reports ........................................................ 81 APPENDIX G: Gas Production, Temperature and pH Data for Different Plants 85 APPENDIX H: Cost Details ................................................................................. 89 APPENDIX I: Financial Analysis for the Substitution of Firewood and Kerosene90 APPENDIX J: Drawing of Continuous Fixed Dome Biogas Plant ...................... 92 APPENDIX K: Drawing of Batch Type Biogas Plant........................................... 93

           

 

9

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Composition of Biogas .............................................................................. 19 Table 2.2: C/N Ratio of Some Organic Materials ....................................................... 21 Table 3.1: Factor Rating Table .................................................................................... 39 Table 4.1: Parameters of Different Feed Materials ..................................................... 46 Table 4.2: Quantity of Different Constituents of the Plants ........................................ 49

                           

 

10

  LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Energy Consumption Pattern in the World (2003 Data) ........................... 15 Figure 1.2: Energy Consumption Pattern in Nepal ...................................................... 16 Figure 2.1: A Typical Biogas System Configuration................................................... 22 Figure 2.2: Floating Drum Type ................................................................................. 24 Figure 2.3: Sketch of KVIC Floating Gas Holder System .......................................... 25 Figure 2.4: GGC Concrete Model Gas Plant .............................................................. 26 Figure 2.5: Fixed Dome Type Biogas Plant ................................................................ 27 Figure 2.6: Puxin Biogas Model ................................................................................. 29 Figure 2.7: NISARG-RUNA Plant ............................................................................. 31 Figure 2.8: ARTI Model ............................................................................................. 33 Figure 2.9: 200 L Capacity Demonstrations Model Biogas Plant ............................... 34 Figure 3.1: Rough Sketch of Design ............................................................................ 37 Figure 3.2: Sketch of the Continuous Feed Plant ....................................................... 42 Figure 3.3: Drawing of the Alternative Plant (Batch Digester) ................................... 43 Figure 6.1: Temperature Profile for 200L Drum (Ombahal) ....................................... 55 Figure 6.2: Temperature Profile for 200L Drum (CES) .............................................. 55 Figure 6.3: Temperature and PH Profile for Plant I..................................................... 56 Figure 6.4: Temperature and pH Profile for Plant II ................................................... 57 Figure 6.5: Temperature and pH Profile for Plant III .................................................. 58 Figure 6.6: Volume Profile for Plant III ..................................................................... 59 Figure 6.7: Temperature and pH Profile for Plant IV .................................................. 60 Figure 6.8: Volume Profile for Plant IV ...................................................................... 60 Figure 6.9: Temperature and pH Profile for Plant V ................................................... 61 Figure 6.10: Volume Profile for Plant V ..................................................................... 62

 

11

LIST OF SYMBOLS

CH4 CH3COOH CH3CH2COOH C2H5OH C6H12O6 CO CO2 H2 H2 O H2S N2

Methane Acetic acid Propionic acid Ethanol Glucose Carbon monoxide Carbon dioxide Hydrogen gas Water vapour Hydrogen sulphide Nitrogen gas

 

12

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ADB ARTI ATC AFPRO BSP BSP-N C/N CES g GGC GHG IOE IRR kg KVIC L LPG m MARR MJ MJ/m3 MJ/kg Rs. NPW RBC        

Asian Development Bank Appropriate Rural Technology Institute Agricultural Technology Center Action for Food Production Biogas Support Program Biogas Sector Partnership - Nepal Carbon to nitrogen Center for Energy Studies gram Gobar Gas and Agricultural Equipment Development Company Green House Gases Institute of Engineering Internal Rate of Return kilogram Khadi Village Industries Commission Liter Liquefied Petroleum Gas meter Minimum Attractive Rate of Return Mega Joule Mega Joule per cubic meter Mega Joule per kilogram Rupees (Nepalese) Present Worth Reinforced Brick Concrete

 

13

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1

Problem/Background

The unavailability of LPG and kerosene is increasing day by day. The price of these fuels has increased and will keep on increasing. This has created a negative impact on the economy of Nepali people. Even when people are willing to pay the price, fuel is not available in required quantity or at times not available at all. The scarcity of fuel is worldwide but for countries like ours it is turning out to be one of the major issues of the country. Most of the energy consumed in Nepal comes from traditional sources such as fuel wood, the use of which contributes to deforestation. Tremendous potential exists for hydroelectric power development, but growth is inhibited by terrain, lack of infrastructure and insufficient capital investment. Nepal has harnessed only a fraction of its potential hydropower; however, a major hydroelectric facility was under construction on the Kali Gandaki River in western Nepal in the early 2000s. The country is heavily reliant on India for imported and nonrenewable sources of power such as oil and kerosene. (Reference: Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2008. © 1993-2007 Microsoft Corporation) Many reasons are there for the shortage of fuel but the major reason is that the fuel is depleting worldwide. The natural sources of the fossil fuels are being consumed in an alarming rate and these resources are coming to an end. Since these fuels are non renewable and cannot be produced by methods known to man, these fuels won’t last for very long. In other words the fossil fuel era is coming to an end. In this condition Nepal will be one of the country having the highest energy crisis if alternate fuel sources aren’t utilized. Thus the crisis of energy and price the people have to pay for the energy will continue to increase if necessary steps for surviving the crisis are not implemented as soon as possible.

14   

The increasing industrialization, urbanization and changes in the pattern of life, which accompany the process of economic growth, give rise to generation of increasing quantities of wastes leading to increased threats to the environment. The disposal of kitchen waste has created many problems in large cities like Kathmandu, Lailitpur, Biratnagar and Pokhara. Kitchen wastes are organic materials which are easily bio-degradable. They are a potential raw material for biogas production. Generally Kitchen waste is treated as waste and thrown which acts as the key factor for the pollution. The pollution leads to number of diseases which affect human health. Energy production from waste is becoming more popular these days. It has mainly two direct advantages. One, the disposal waste is reduced as it is utilized. Another, energy is generated. Traditional biogas plant such as fixed dome or floating drum made of concrete or other materials are generally below the ground. The scarcity of land in urban areas like Kathmandu has made it nearly impossible for the local people to install the biogas plant. Further, cattle dung is not available in these areas. Use of biogas plant (above ground) using kitchen wastes seem to decrease the problem arising from scarcity of LPG. Energy Trend in the World

 
Figure 1.1: Energy Consumption Pattern in the World (2003 Data)

(Reference: Encarta Encyclopedia, Microsoft Corporation 2008)
15   

Energy Trend in Nepal (1992/93 Data)

 
Figure 1.2 : Energy Consumption Pattern in Nepal

(Reference: Bajracharya T.R., 1989, “Course Manual on Energy resources and combustion processes” IOE) 1.2 Historical Background of Biogas Technology in Nepal

The first biogas plant in Nepal was introduced in 1955. The initiation started as an experiment of late Father B.R. Saubolle in St. Xavier’s School, Godavari, and Kathmandu. The first biogas plant was made up of an old oil drum of 200 liter capacity. HMG, Nepal introduced official biogas program in 1975 aiming controlling deforestation and prevention burning of cow-dung which otherwise could be utilized as valuable fertilizer. In 1992, Biogas Support Programme (BSP) was established aiming to develop and disseminate biogas technology as a commercially viable and market oriented industry. Biogas plants installation and quality was increased rapidly after the establishment of BSP (Bajgain, 2003). The number of plants installed rose to 86,400 by May 2002, covering 65 districts of the country, especially villages in rural areas of Nepal. According to Biogas Sector Partnership – Nepal, 189,698 biogas plants have been established in 69 districts till the end of December, 2008.

16   

Some studies have been made for the biogas plants having cow dung as input. But none of the remarkable studies have been made regarding use of kitchen waste in Nepal. Literature regarding use of kitchen waste only or vegetable wastes only as input for biogas generation is difficult to find. All of the plants installed use cattle dung as feedstock and about 80 percent of them have also been connected with toilet to add the human excreta as feedstock (Dhakal, 2002). However, none have been using the other organic wastes for this purpose. There are so many farmers in rural and sub-urban areas who want to install a biogas plant but have insufficient number of cattle and/or people to produce sufficient amount of feed stocks to run the biogas plant. If use of organic wastes and plant residue is encouraged they will be greatly benefited (Dhakal, Patrabansh, Karki, Sharma and Adhikari, 2003). Therefore, the use of organic wastes, of which the Vegetable and Kitchen Waste (VKW) comprises the main part, for the production of biogas is an environment-friendly technology both in the urban as well as rural areas. When applied, it will benefit the marginal farmers in rural and suburban areas and at the same time it will initiate at source management of municipal solid waste in urban areas. It will decrease firewood, fossil fuel as well as chemical fertilizer demand thus saving the foreign currency of the country and discouraging deforestation (Dhakal, 2002).

1.3

Objective

The main objective is: • To generate and evaluate biogas from kitchen waste in “above ground fixed dome biogas plant” and to find the potential of biogas generation from major kitchen wastes The project targets the various problems such as shortage of the cooking gas, problem of management of kitchen waste etc. The specific objectives of this project are: • To generate biogas in kitchen waste Biogas plant from kitchen wastes, using cow dung as an activator
17   

• • •

To conduct test of biogas obtained from different feeds(kitchen wastes) To determine the energy production pattern on the plant To do financial evaluation of the biogas plant for substituting wood and kerosene

Hence, the target of the project is to design a biogas plant which can be installed in the urban areas where there is very limited space which can address the problem of the shortage of cooking gas seen in the urban areas. The other objective of the project is the management of the kitchen waste.

1.4

Methodology

1. The extensive and sufficient literature review has been carried out and will be updated in the course of the continuing project. The literature review has been done from different media. 2. The preliminary designs were sketched. 3. The design was finalized by the discussion among the group members. 4. Cost of the plant was estimated. 5. The materials required for the construction or fabrication of the plant was collected. 6. Plant was fabricated. 7. The plant was tested with different feed materials. 8. Financial evaluation of the plant was performed. 9. The final project conclusion was drawn. 10. Submission of project report

1.5

Limitations

1. All kitchen wastes couldn’t be tested. 2. The proposed biogas plant was basically for testing purpose. 3. There occurred over-acidification due to over feeding of plant as the plant was of little capacity and the diameter to height ratio was low.

18   

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction

Biogas is the inflammable gas produced from the anaerobic fermentation of the bio degradable substance due to the activity of the methanogenic bacteria. This gas is mainly composed of the methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapor etc. Table 2.1: Composition of Biogas
Substances Methane Carbon dioxide Hydrogen Nitrogen Water vapor Hydrogen sulphide Symbol CH4 CO2 H2 N2 H2O H2S percentage 50-70 30-40 5-10 1-2 0.3 Traces

(Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org) 2.2 Process of the Biogas Production

There are three steps or the process involved in the production or the activity of the gas. Process is 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 Hydrolysis Acetogenisis Methanogenesis

19   

2.2.1

Hydrolysis

It is the first step involved in the process also known as the liquefaction. In this process the fermantive bacteria converts insoluble complex organic into the soluble organic compound and also complex polymer is converted into the simple monomer. Examples are cellulose is converted into the sugar, amino acid and fatty acid. This is being the important step, is also the rate limiting step. Industrially this problem is overcome by use of the chemical reagent 2.2.2 Acetogenisis

In this process the product from the first process is converted into the simple organic acid, carbon dioxide and hydrogen. Major acids which are produced during this process are Acetic acid (CH3COOH), propionic acid (CH3CH2COOH), (CH3CH2CH2COOH), and ethanol (C2H5OH). The reaction involve is C6H12O6 (Glucose) 2.2.3 → 2C2H5OH (Ethanol) Methanogenesis + 2CO2 (Carbon dioxide)

Methane is produced by the action of the bacteria called methanogens bacteria. There are two methods of he production of the methane, first is by the cleavage of acetic acid to generate the carbon dioxide and methane. Second process is the reduction of carbon dioxide with the hydrogen. Methane production is higher from the second process, but it is limited by the amount of the hydrogen in the digester. The reaction involve in this process are: CH3COOH (Acetic acid) 2C2H5OH (Ethanol)
 

→ CH4 (Methane) + CO2

+

CO2 (Carbon dioxide) →
20 

CH4

+

2CH3COOH (Acetic acid)

(Carbon dioxide)

(Methane)

CO2

+

4H2

CH4

+

2H2O (Water)

(Carbon dioxide) (Hydrogen)

(Methane)

Table 2.2: C/N Ratio of Some Organic Materials S.N. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Raw materials Duck dung Human excreta Chicken dung Goat dung Pig dung Sheep dung Cow dung/ buffalo dung Water hyacinth Elephant dung Straw (maize) Straw (rice) Straw (wheat) Saw dust C/N Ratio 8 8 10 12 18 19 24 25 43 60 70 90 Above 200 (Ref: www.norganics.com) 2.3 Biogas Plant System The feed material is mixed with water in the influent collecting tank. The fermentation slurry flows through the inlet into the digester. The bacteria from the fermentation slurry are intended to produce biogas in the digester. For this purpose, they need time to multiply and to spread throughout the slurry. The digester must be designed in a way that only fully digested slurry can leave it. The bacteria are distributed in the slurry by stirring (with a stick or stirring facilities). The fully digested slurry leaves the digester through the outlet into the slurry storage.

21   

The biogas is collected and stored until the time of consumption in the gasholder. The gas pipe carries the biogas to the place where it is consumed by gas appliances like stove, lamp and generator. Condensation collecting in the gas pipe is removed by a water trap.

 
Figure 2.1: A Typical Biogas System Configuration

2.4 •

Factors Affecting Biogas Generation Carbon to Nitrogen (C/N) ratio: Carbon (as carbohydrates) and nitrogen (as protein, ammonium nitrates etc.) are the main food of anaerobic bacteria. If the C/N ratio is very high, nitrogen will be consumed rapidly and the rate of reaction will be decreased. On the other hand if the C/N ratio is very low, nitrogen will be liberated and accumulated in the form of ammonia. The ammonia can kill or inhibit the growth of bacteria specially methane producers. In general a ratio of in range of 20-30:1 is considered the best for anaerobic digestion.

pH value: Both over acidic and over alkaline than certain limits are harmful to Methanogenesis organisms. The optimum biogas production is achieved when the pH value of the input mixture to the digester is between 6 and 7.

22   

Temperature: Enzymatic activity of bacteria largely depends upon temperature, which is critical factor for methane production. The bacteria work best at a temperature of 35°C to 38°C.

Loading Rate: The digester load is primarily dependent upon four factors- substrate, temperature, volumetric burden and type of plant. The correct rate of loading is important for efficient gas production.

Retention Time: It depends on the type of feedstock and the temperature. The retention time is calculated by dividing total capacity of the digester by the rate at which organic matter is fed into it.

Total Solid Content: For proper solubility of organic materials, the ratio between solid and water should be 1:1 on unit volume basis when the domestic wastes are used. If the slurry mixture is too diluted, the solid particles can precipitate at the bottom of digester and if it is too thick, the flow of gas can be impeded. In both cases gas production will be less than optimum production.

Toxicity: Mineral ions, heavy metals and the detergents are some of the toxic materials that inhibit the normal growth of the pathogens in the digester. Small quantity of mineral ions like sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium and sulphur stimulates the growth of bacteria while very heavy concentration of these ions will have toxic effect.

Pressure: It has been reported that better production of biogas takes place at lower pressures.

2.5 Types of The Biogas Plant Bio gas plant can be classified with accordance to the different criteria 2.5.1 On the basis of the construction of plant 2.5.2 On the basis of types of feeding
23   

2.5.1

On the Basis of the Construction

In this type of the classification of the plant there are two types of plants. 2.5.1.1 Floating Drum Digester This type of plant basically comprises of an underground brick masonry digester connected with an inlet and outlet and covered by a floating steel gas holder for gas collection. It is divided into two parts. One side has the inlet, from where slurry is fed to the tank. The tank has a cylindrical dome made of stainless steel that floats on the slurry and collects the gas generated. Hence the name given to this type of plant is floating gas holder type of bio gas plant. The slurry is made to ferment for about 50 days. As more gas is made by the bacterial fermentation, the pressure inside dome increases. The decomposed matter expands and overflows into the next chamber in tank T. This is then removed by the outlet pipe to the overflow tank and is used as manure for cultivation purposes. Gas holder moves up and down guided by a central guide pipe depending upon accumulation and discharge of gas. The floating gas holder at the top of the digester helps to keep the pressure constant. The gas holder rises when the pressure is increased due to production of gas and allows the generated gas to let out through the gas supply pipe. It lowers when the pressure is decreased to stop the supply of biogas. In 1956 Jasu Bhai J. Patel developed design of floating drum biogas plant is popularly known as Gobar Gas Plant. In 1962, the Khadi Village Industries Commission (KVIC) of India approved Patel’s design and this model soon gained popularity in India as well as the subcontinent. This design is also known as KVIC design.

Figure 2.2: Floating Drum Type

24   

Figure 2.3: Sketch of KVIC Floating Gas Holder System

Advantages Since the floating drum is made of steel, therefore it is less favorable for corrosion. Disadvantages • • • • The plants have become obsolete. It needs large investment and maintenance cost. Design weaknesses are present in the model. viz. mild steel drum corrodes and needs to be replaced within 5-10 years. The drum has to be anchored to prevent it from overtopping due to high gas pressure.

2.5.1.2 Fixed Dome Digester In fixed dome digester, the gas holder and the digester are combined. Gas is stored in the upper part of the digester. Upper portion of the digester pit itself acts as a gas holder. Displaced level of slurry provides requisite pressure for release of gas for its subsequent use. The pressure inside the digester varies as the gas is collected. Fixed dome digester varies as the gas is collected. Fixed dome digesters are usually built below the ground level. Based on the principles of fixed dome Chinese model, various countries have put forth modified designs to suit their local conditions. For example, Gobar Gas and
25   

Agricultural Equipment Development Company (GGC) of Nepal have developed a design commonly known as the GGC model. Compared to the Chinese fixed dome model, the GGC model is easier to construct as this structure has less curved profiles. In an effort to lower the investment cost of the fixed dome plant, the Deenbandhu model was put forth in 1984 by the Action for Food Production (AFPRO), New Delhi. In India this model proved 30 percent cheaper than the Chinese fixed dome model of comparative size. However, in Nepal preliminary studies carried out by BSP did not find any significant difference between the investment cost of GGC and the Deenbandhu design of comparative size (Karki, Shrestha and Bajgain, 2005).

 
Figure 2.4: GGC Concrete Model Gas Plant

26   

 
Figure 2.5: Fixed Dome Type Biogas Plant

Advantages • • • It can be built with local materials. Its construction costs are low. The life of fixed dome plant is longer (20 to 50 years) compared to KVIC plant, as there are no moving parts and both concrete and cement masonry is relatively less susceptible to corrosion.

Disadvantages The volume of this model is fixed. So if the gas pressure increases inside, it may cause damage to the concrete dome.

2.5.2 On the Basis of Types of Feeding Depending on type of feeding they can be classified into (Ostrem, 2004)

27   

2.5.2.1 Batch Digester In the batch process, the substrate is put in the reactor at the beginning of the degradation period and sealed for the complete retention time, after which it is opened and the effluent is removed. The reaction stages occur more or less consecutively and the production of the biogas follows a bell curve with time. When waste is first loaded, hydrolysis takes place and gas production is low, forming only carbon dioxide. Methane production increases during the acid forming stages and is maximum halfway through the degradation period when methanogenesis dominates the processes. Towards the end of the degradation period, only the least easily digestible material remains, and gas production drops. The sludge in a batch reactor is normally not mixed, allowing the content of the digester to stratify into layers of gas, scum, supernatant, an active layer, and stabilized solids at the bottom. Influent and effluent valves reside in the supernatant layer and solids must be removed near the bottom. Retention times range from 30-60 days with an organic loading rate between 0.48 and 1.6 kg TVS/m3 reactor volume/day. The disadvantage of this type of system is the large tank volume required due to the long retention time, the low organic loading rate and the formation of a scum layer. Only about 1/3 of the tank volume is used for active digestion, making this a poor option in crowded urban settings. 2.5.2.2 Continuous Digester In the continuous process, fresh material continuously enters the tank and an equal amount of digested material is removed in an ongoing process. There are distinct stages of digestion throughout the batch process whereas equilibrium is achieved in the continuous process. When consistent feedstock input is used, all reactions occur at a fairly steady rate resulting in approximately constant biogas production. The structure for a continuous process can be identical to a batch process, a cylindrical tank with influent and effluent valves. Because there is constant movement, however, material inside the tank is mixed and does not become stratified. This allows for more optimal use of the tank volume. The disadvantage of the continuous process is the removed effluent is a
28   

combination of completely digested and partially digested material. To minimize the removal of partially digested material, some designs dictate the path of the digestion inside the chamber, for example through the use of interior walls. The reported residence time for a continuous process is an average across the substrate. 2.6 Currently Existing Other Biogas Plant 2.6.1 Puxin Biogas Plant The Puxin biogas digester is a kind of hydraulic pressure biogas digester, and is composed of a fermentation tank built with concrete, and a gas cover made with glass fiber reinforced plastic. The fermentation tank has a capacity of 6 cubic meters, and is constituted by a tank stomach, a tank neck, an entrance pipe and an exit pipe. The gas cover is installed in the tank neck, fixed by a component and sealed up with water. The Puxin biogas gasholder is 1.6 m in diameter and 0.6 m in height. The gas cover has the capacity of 1 m3 and has weight of 60 kg. The biogas cover is 100% airtight comparing to the traditional Hydraulic Biogas Digester. Inlet
Gas Pipe

Outlet

 
Figure 2.6: Puxin Biogas Model

Advantages • It is easy to build.
29   

• • • •

It is highly industrialized and hence is fit for cosmically and fleetly spread. It is convenient to replace fermentation material and fit to use straw and other solid organic material for fermentation. It is easy to maintain and has a long operation life. It has airtight function and has high rate of biogas production.

Disadvantages • • • There is water loss due to seepage in the joints due to the movement of the pipe in pressure. The steel moulds are heavy and difficult to transport to remote areas. The cost of the plant is quite high. 2.6.2 Agri / Kitchen Waste Based Biogas Plant

This technology has been developed by "Nuclear Agriculture and Biotechnology Division" of BARC. NISARG-RUNA plant can process almost any biodegradable waste including kitchen waste, paper, grass, night soil, dry leaves etc. There is a good potential for energy generation in this biphasic biomethanation plant. The manure is weed free and does not have any offensive smell. The plant produces biogas from kitchen waste by using thermophilic microorganisms that flourish in extreme environment. The biogas plant has following components: A mixer/pulper (5 HP motor) for crushing the solid waste, Premix tanks, Predigested tank, Solar heater for water heating, Main digestion tank (35 m3), Manure pits, Gas lamps for utilization of the biogas generated in the plant. The waste is converted into slurry by mixing water (1:1) in this mixture. The other modification is use of thermophilic microbes for faster degradation of the waste. The growth of thermophiles in the predigestor tank is assured by mixing the waste with hot water and maintaining the temperature in the range of 55-60°C. The hot water supply is from a solar heater.

30   

From the predigestor tank, the slurry enters the main tank where it undergoes mainly anaerobic degradation by a consortium of archaebacteria belonging to Methanococcus group. They produce mainly methane from the cellulosic materials in the slurry. The undigested lignocellulosic and hemicellulosic materials then are passed on to the settling tank. After about a month, high quality manure is dug out from the settling tanks. The organic contents are high and this can improve the quality of humus in soil.

Figure 2.7: NISARG-RUNA plant

Advantages • • • Generation of fairly good amount of fuel gas. Generation of high quality manure, which would be weedless and an excellent soil conditioner. The gas generated in this plant can also be used as a source of natural gas. The composition of biogas is - Methane (CH4): 70-75% - Carbon Dioxide (CO2): 10-15% - Water vapors: 5-10%.

Disadvantages • This model of biogas plant requires large space.
31   

It makes the use of motor and solar heater which makes it unfavorable for the rural areas where no electricity is present.

2.6.3 ARTI Biogas Plant: A Compact Digester for Producing Biogas from Food Waste Introduction ARTI has developed a compact biogas plant which uses waste food rather than dung/manure as feedstock, to supply biogas for cooking. The plant is sufficiently compact to be used by urban households, and about 2000 are currently in use – both in urban and rural households in Maharashtra. A few have been installed in other parts of India and even elsewhere in the world. Dr. Anand Karve (President of ARTI) developed a compact biogas system that uses starchy or sugary feedstock (waste grain flour, spoilt grain, overripe or misshapen fruit, no edible seeds, fruits and rhizomes, green leaves, kitchen waste, leftover food, etc).

Working The smaller tank is the gas holder and is inverted over the larger one which holds the mixture of decomposing feedstock and water (slurry). At inlet feeding matter should be ground or pulped and mix with 2 to 3 bucket full of water. So, an inlet is provided with much smaller amount of solid matter than the residue from a manure-based plant, and ARTI recommend that the liquid is mixed with the fedstock and recycled into the plant. A pipe takes the biogas to the kitchen, where it is used with a biogas stove. Such stoves are widely available in India which has a long tradition of using manure-based biogas plants. The gas holder gradually rises as gas is produced, and sinks down again as the gas is used for cooking. Weights can be placed on the top of the gas holder to increase the gas pressure.

32   

Figure 2.8: ARTI Model

Advantages • • • • The immediate benefit from owning a compact biogas system is the savings in cost. It is an environmentally friendly cooking system. The size and cost of this system is relatively lower. It is an extremely user friendly system, because it requires daily only a couple of kg feedstock, and the disposal of daily just 5 liters of effluent slurry. • A single plant produces sufficient biogas to at least halve the use of LPG or kerosene for cooking in a household, as well as a small amount of solid residue which can be used as fertilizer.

Disadvantages • The biogas plant can become acidic and fail if it is over-fed, and this is a particular challenge with a plant using highly digestible organic materials. • Plant’s heat insulation is not considered.
33   

Since heat insulation is not considered, it can not be used in region where weather fluctuates more.

2.6.4

Experimental Model Biogas Plant by Ajay Karki

A 200L volume biogas plant as shown in the figure 12 was designed by Ajay Karki and manufactured at the workshop of equipment maintenance centre (EMC), Kathmandu, Nepal. The design is partially based on fixed dome Chinese model plant but fabricated out of mild steel sheet. Gas storage space is provided at the upper dome which is fixed and input is fed from the inlet as shown in the figure. However, unlike the conventional fixed dome model where the digested effluent is poured out automatically by the gas pressure built inside the digester ( and the dome), in this demonstration plant the effluent has to be manually removed by opening the bulb valve at the outlet.

Figure 2.9: 200L Capacity Demonstration Model Biogas Plant

The raw material (input) used for demonstration model consists of potato peels, banana peels, vegetable stem as well as cooked food and uncooked vegetable waste. 150L has been allotted for the fermenting material (slurry) inside the digester and around 50L have been left for gas storage and was increased by the material with digested slurry from an operating biogas plant which is about 10% to 20%. The chopped vegetable waste with equal volume of water is mixed to enhance the pre-fermentation process.
34   

This bio reactor has been designed to operate both as continuous and batch feeding system. If each day for a given input, an equal volume of digested output is removed, it would be a continuous system. Conversely, if the plant is fed fully and, once gas production diminishes drastically or even ceases it is completely emptied; it would be a batch fed system. The design allows the plant to operate under both systems since unlike conventional biogas plants where the pressure governs the slurry outflow; a valve is used to remove the digested slurry. In his study, the plant is being used as semi-continuous or semi-batch system (Bajagain, 2005).

35   

CHAPTER 3 CONSTRUCTION AND FABRICATION The design process was carried out in the following stages: 3.1 Idea Generation During idea generation phase, different model, design and type of bio gas plant were studied. The most common type of design studied was: a) Floating drum Type b) Fixed dome type

Floating Drum Type Floating Drum is mostly popular in India and some part of South East Asia. In India, It is popularly known as ARTI (Appropriate Rural Technology Institute) model. So ARTI is well known institute for floating drum Biogas plant in India. Detail of this type is already discussed in literature review part. So it has got both advantages and disadvantages. Floating drum is normally made from two drum where one drum is floating gas holder drum which should be polythene drum, but the Digester tank may be either R.B.C or G.I.sheet or polythene drum.

Fixed Dome Type Fixed dome type is popular all over Asia and it is popularly known as Gobar gas plant in south East Asia. It was introduced from china. It has only one fixed dome where the drum half part acts as gas holder and half for fermentation. But it has also got both advantages and disadvantages. It can also be made of either Re-inforced Brick Concrete, or G.I.sheet or polythene drum.

36   

The common existing model and design are: a. Fixed Dome Type i. ii. iii. iv. GGC concrete Model Biogas plant Chinese model fixed dome biogas plant Deenbanhdu Biogas plant. PVC bag Digester etc.

b. Floating Drum Type i. ii. KVIC floating gas holder system ARTI floating drum gas holder system. Etc

After studying all above types, model and design, fixed dome plant was chosen for our testing purpose to avoid moveable part and wear-ability. So, for this 200L drum was decided as our digester tank. So, for this either it was needed to be fabricated by G.I. sheet or by R.B.C or by already existing polythene drum (such as Hilltake drum, sprit drum, paint drum etc.). The rough sketch of the design is shown below.

 
Figure 3.1: Rough sketch of design

37   

The above fixed dome was specially targeted for continuous feed type because for this less initial feed was required and less quantity of particular kitchen waste like rice was easily available for a day. So, that testing becomes effective and efficient. The alternative design for the testing was Batch type digester which include 20L water jar that is easily available in market. But for this, it required large quantity of feeding material and pre-fermentation only once at first. Incase the initial design failed or, it becomes difficult to carry out the experiment, so second plan had been thought off. Hence at first 200L drum (fixed type) was decided as digester for testing purpose.

3.2 Idea Screening The material that can be used for fabricating the digester tank may be either G.I. sheet or R.B.C or readymade 200L polythene drum like: Hilltake, spirit drum, or paint drum.etc Factor considered for Idea screening are as follows: a. Availability: G.I. sheet, R.B.C and polythene drum, all are easily available in the market. But Polythene drum are easily available in the form of drum in the market. b.Strength (pressure holding capacity): R.B.C and G.I. sheet has got high pressure bearing capacity than polythene drum. c. Leakage: Concrete may have major leakage problem if fabrication is done in poor management way. So ratio of cement water should be well maintained. G.I sheet may have leakage problem through joint like rivet joint. But there is less leakage chance for polythene if adhesive are properly stocked on the joints. d.Durability: Durability of R.B.C is higher then polythene drum and G.I sheet.

38   

e. Fabricability: Polythene drum plant fabrication is easier than R.B.C and G.I sheet due to less labor cost and less machining parts respectively. f. Solid Waste Reuse: Polythene drum such as sprit drum and paint drum are reused material. R.B.C can also be reuse but G.I sheet need to fabricate. g.Cost: R.B.C and G.I sheet fabrication cost is higher than Polythene drum. (Reference for cost: according to 2004-2005 cost of steel plant was NRs.4000/-, -Ajay Karki, Biogas As Renewable source of energy in Nepal theory and development. Editor: Dr. A.B. Karki, Prof. Jagan N. Shrestha, Mr. Sundar Bajgain). Above factors are rated on the scale 1 to 5 which forms the basis of selection.

3.3 Selection Fixed dome type was already selected in screening phase. So, here, the selection meant the selection of material that was to be used during fabrication of digester. The following are for selection of fabricating material by scale rating method from 1to 5. So, with the help of table below, material with higher mark scoring was selected. Table 3.1: Factor Rating Table
**Durability *Fabrication ***Leakage Availability S.N *Market Material

**Strength

***Cost

*Reuse

1. 2. 3.

R.B.C M.S sheet Polythene drum

4 3 4

4 4 3

4 3 4

2 3 4

3 2 4

4 3 4

2 3 4

23 21 27

where,
39   

Total

* Availability, Reuse, Fabrication 1 for Very difficult 2 for difficult 3 for moderate 4 for easy 5 for very easy

3 for moderate 4 high 5 very high

***Cost, leakage 1 for very high 2 for high 3 for moderate 4 for low 5 for very low

** Strength, Durability 1 for very low 2 for low

So from above discussion and table, it became clear that polythene drum was used as digester. But through market study, it becomes ineffective to use Hilltake drum as fixed drum because it has got big mouth opening which makes the fabrication difficult. So lastly we decided to use spirit drum as digester drum because it had got small threaded mouth cap with sealing and becomes easy fabrication. Note: Strength is on the basis of 4 inch wall, 2mm steel sheet and 8mm thick poly drum. Also from above discussion, for alternative batch type plant, water jar became well suited batch digester.

3.4 Detail List of Selected Plant Part Name: a. 200L poly drum, b. PVC pipes of 2.5” and 4”, c. Gas cock, d. 0.5 inch sucket and elbow, e. 4 inch door bent, f. 15L bucket, g. M-sheal, and PVC seal,
40   

h. 2.5inch and 4inch barrel, i. Gas collecting pipe, j. Thermometer, k. Bundle of straw, l. Sheet of polythene plastic.

3.5 Description of Fabrication Step 1 First the 200L sprit drum was taken and cleaned properly from inside by water. Step 2 4 inch dia. Circle was drawn at one side of the drum at 80cm depth. Then 4” barrel was heated for 5 minute and was placed on that mark to make 4” hole for outlet pipe. Also 4” hole is made to bottom of 15L bucket by same barrel. Step 3 Second marking of 2.5” dia. Circle was drawn at the top of the drum 20 cm from the center of drum. Then 2.5” barrel was head for 5min. and was placed at the mark to make second hole for inlet pipe Step 4 0.5” barrel was heated for 5 min and threaded at the top most surface center for placement of gas cork setup. Step 5 4” PVC pipe of 20cm long was inserted to 4” hole and joined section was sealed by Mseal.4” doors bent was joined to this pipe and sealed by PVC seal. Next 4” pipe of 33cm long was placed vertically to other end of door bent and was sealed by PVC seal. So the bucket is placed vertically at the top of this pipe and sealed by PVC seal. Step 6 Next 2.5” pipe of 78cm long was also inserted completely from the top leaving 10% of total length at the top end. The joint was sealed by M-seal.
41   

Step 7 Elbow and socket were fixed at the top centre. Gas cock was then fixed on the elbow. Step 8 Slurry mixture was poured to the tank from inlet to 1/3 level of drum. Then the gas cock was closed and air leakage from joint was checked by placing soap water.

Insulation Step Straw was packed in a polythene bag to make polythene blanket. This blanket was rapped all over the cylindrical drum for insulation. The sketch of plant is shown below. The picture of the same is provided in annex J.

 
Figure 3.2: Sketch of the Continuous Feed Plant (Dimension in cm)

3.6 Alternative Design Common water jar of 20L capacity was chosen and it was fabricated as explained in fabrication method below.
42   

 
Figure 3.3: Drawing of the Alternative Plant (Batch Digester) (Dimension in cm)

3.6.1 List of Parts a. 20L jar b. rubber cork c. delivery tube 7.5 mm in diameter d. Plastic pipe of 7.5mm diameter e. Aluminum tube of 8mm diameter f. clips g. thermometer h. straw and foam

3.6.2 Fabrication method for alternative batch type: Step1 The top of the cork was marked with 7.5mm diameter and 8mm diameter circle at 20mm distance. Then it was drilled by 7.5mm diameter drill and 8mm diameter drill to insert 8cm long delivery tube and 35 cm long aluminum tube.
43   

Step 2 Then the calculated feeding mixture was poured onto the jar. Step 3 So the cork with the tubes were inserted on the jar mouth and hammered with mallet hammer. Step 4 Gas pipe was joined to the delivery tube by little preheating. Step 5 The gas pipe was clipped to make air tight. Step 6 Mouth of aluminum tube was joined by small piece of gas pipe which was also closed by clipping. Aluminum tube was used for inserting thermometer. The picture of the plant is provided in annex K.

3.7 Insulation and heating system: • At first the insulation was done by placing the jar in foam box and jar was covered with straw by compacting it. Also 1200W halogen heater was used for external heating. • • In a plant, aquarium water heater was also used to heat the pool of water surrounding the jar. Later insulation was done by rapping the jar with polystyrene foam (thermocot).The pictures is provided in annex A.

44   

CHAPTER 4 MATERIALS AND METHODS Since all the wastes generated from the kitchen cannot be tested in the plant which is also one of the limitations of our project, therefore some of the materials are selected which can meet the objective of the project and cover every aspect of the kitchen wastes. 4.1 Basis of Material Selection There are two bases that are selected for the selection of kitchen wastes. The bases are as explained below. 4.1.1 Volume The volume of kitchen waste generated has been considered as the prime basis for the selection of geed material for testing in the plant. There are different kinds of wastes generated from the kitchens in the households. Among them the kitchen wastes that are produced in abundant quantity which have potential for the biogas production is selected as the feeding materials for the biogas. e.g. Rice is present in the abundant quantity in the kitchen waste. Hence rice is used as feed material. Also among fruits, banana is quite common and hence banana peels can be considered as potential feed for the biogas plant. 4.1.2 Kinds of wastes Since the attempt has been made to cover all the types of kitchen wastes, therefore a kitchen waste from each category (crops, vegetables, fruits) has been selected as feeding materials. Among crops, rice is quite common food in Nepalese society. So, rice is considered as the feed materials. Among vegetables potato is the most common vegetable and potato can be mixed with almost all kinds’ of vegetables. So, potato is also considered as the feed material for on of the plants. Also cabbage is widely consumed in the Nepalese society. So, cabbage has also made its way as a testing feed material for the plant.

45   

Among fruits, banana is quite common fruit. Also, banana is available throughout the year . Hence, banana peels are also considered for the testing purpose in the plant. Table 4.1: Parameters of Different Feed Materials S.N. Material Kind Initial Moisture(%) Total pH 1. 2. 3. 4. Rice Cabbage Potato Banana Crop 6 80.05 91.06 81.46 91.5 Carbon-

Solid(T.S.)(%) nitrogen ratio(C:N) 19.95 8.94 18.54 8.5 25.1 12 25 23.64

Vegetable 7 Vegetable 7 Fruits 7

(Reference for C:N value www.norganics.com and moisture contentfrom Mr. Harka man limbu) Since we are making a test using these materials, therefore it is quite important to know these materials quite better. Thus, the information regarding these wastes is provided in the following parts: 4.1.2.1. Cabbage The cabbage is a leafy garden plant of the Family Brassicaceae (or Cruciferae), used as a vegetable. It is a herbaceous, biennial, dicotyledonous flowering plant distinguished by a short stem upon which is crowded a mass of leaves, usually green but in some varieties red or purplish, forming a characteristic compact, globular cluster (cabbagehead). Only green cabbage has been used during the study. 4.1.2.2. Rice Rice is a staple food for a large part of the world's human population, Southeast Asia, making it the second-most consumed cereal grain, after maize. Rice is also one of the major or most common kitchen wastes.

46   

4.1.2.3. Potato The potato is a starchy, tuberous crop from the perennial Solanum tuberosum of the Solanaceae family. The word potato may refer to the plant itself as well. In the region of the Andes, there are some other closely related cultivated potato species. Potatoes are the world's fourth largest food crop, following rice, wheat, and corn. 4.1.2.4. Banana Banana is the common name for a fruit and also the herbaceous plants of the genus Musa which produce this commonly eaten fruit. They are cultivated throughout the tropics. Each individual fruit (known as a banana or 'finger') has a protective outer layer (a peel or skin) with a fleshy edible inner portion. Both skin and inner part can be eaten raw or cooked. Bananas are grown in at least 107 countries. The bananas from a group of cultivars with firmer, starchier fruit are called plantains. Bananas may also be cut and dried and eaten as a type of chip. Dried bananas are also ground into banana flour. Bananas are classified either as dessert bananas (meaning they are yellow and fully ripe when eaten) or as green cooking bananas. Almost all export bananas are of the dessert types; however, only about 10-15% of all production is for export.

4.2 Charging of plants The charging of the different plants fabricated is different regarding their types. The methods for charging are described in the following parts. 4.2.1 Continuous digester Volume of the digester = 200 L = = = Volume available for feed = (200-66.66) L =133.33 L
47   

Volume required for the gas collection

one-third of volume of digester (200/3)L 66.66 L

By approximation, 140 L of volume was allocated for the feeding of material with water to the plant.

Date of charging First continuous digester-October 27, 2008 Second continuous digester-November27, 2008 For better result, 90% of moisture is desired. So to make up the proportion, 65 l of water was added with 65kg of cow dung and 10kg of inoculums from the existing floating drum biogas plant designed by Harka Man Limbu was added. Then no feed was supplied for 40 days. After initial loading by above procedure the moisture was allowed to ferment. But due to rapid fluctuation of temperature, the methane content was not in satisfactory proportion. Thus, the plant was not started to feed by the kitchen wastes and was discarded as the plant had turned to acidic nature. Thus we operated for 20L jar batch digester plant and continued our project on testing in small batch digester. 4.2.2 Batch digester The feeding of the batch digester was done by the following methods: Capacity of the jar=20L Volume required for the gas collection=one-third of volume of digester = (20/3) =6L(approx) Volume available for feed = (20-6) =14L By approximation, 14L of volume was allocated for the feeding of material with water to the plant.

48   

Different batch digester contains different amount of particular feed which are described in the following parts. a) Banana Plant(Plant I) Volume of water fed=7L Weight of banana peel fed=6 kg Weight of cow dung=1 kg Total volume of feed=14L d) Potato Plant (Plant IV) Volume of water fed=6.5L Weight of potato fed= 5 kg b) Cabbage Plant(Plant II) Volume of water fed=7L Weight of cabbage fed=6 kg Weight of cow dung=1 kg Total volume of feed=14L e) Banana Plant (Plant V) Volume of water fed=6.5L Weight of banana peel fed=6 kg c) Rice Plant (Plant III) Volume of water fed= 4.5L Weight of rice fed= 3.5 kg Weight of cow dung=1 kg Volume of cow urine=0.5L Total volume of feed=14L Weight of cow dung= 1.5 kg Total volume of feed=13L Weight of cow dung= 0.5 kg Total volume of feed=8.5L

Table 4.2: Quantity of Different Constituents of the Plants Plant I Volume of water Weight of feed Weight of cow dung Total volume 7L 6 kg 1 kg 14L Plant II 7L 6 kg 1 kg 14 L Plant III 4.5 L 3.5 kg 0.5 kg 8.5L Plant IV 6.5 L 5 kg 1.5 kg 13L Plant V 6.5 L 6 kg 1 kg 14 L

Note: 0.5 L urine was added in plant V 4.3 Measuring Methods The following three techniques were used to measure different parameters such as pH, proportion of gases, temperature, volume of the gas produced, etc.
49   

a.

pH

The pH of the slurry of different stages and different states of reaction is an important parameter for the biogas production. The pH of the slurry was measured by making the use of pH paper. The paper had the range from 1 to 10 on the basis of color coding. The procedures followed are listed below: i. ii. iii. iv. v. The pH paper leaf was taken out of the stack of pH paper. The paper was dipped in the slurry. The color of the paper was changed. The changed color or the new color of the slurry was compared to the color code on the stack of the pH paper cover. The corresponding reading of the color was noted and marked on the data sheet.

b. Volume The measurement of volume of the gas produced is and important part of this project. The measurement of the volume has been carried out by the process of downward displacement of water of pH 5. As the biogas is lighter than water; the volume of water gets collected at the top of the water in the measuring cylinder. The process is explained as below: i. Apparatus Setup

The trough was filled with water. The measuring cylinder after filling with water was mounted on the beehive shelf inside the water. The gas outlet pipe from the digester was joined to the beehive shelf. ii. Measuring Procedure

The procedures followed for measuring of the volume are as follows: a. The valve of at the gas outlet pipe was opened. b. The gas was allowed to pass into the measuring cylinder through beehive shelf. c. The gas displaced the water downward and occupied the space at the top. d. The volume displaced was noted from the scale of the measuring cylinder.
50   

e. If the gas coming out was found to exceed the capacity of the measuring cylinder scale, the valve was closed at the appropriate position up to where the gas volume could be recorded. f. The gas collected inside measuring cylinder was allowed to escape. g. The water was again filled in measuring cylinder and mounted on the beehive shelf. h. The volume of the gas was measured by following the steps from i to iv and the cycle was repeated until the gas was evolved. c.

Proportion

Gas board was used to measure the proportion of the different gases in the biogas. Since the gas board was able to show the proportion of carbon-dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), therefore only two gases was analyzed in the study. The process followed to measure the proportion of methane and carbon dioxide. i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. The setup was made by connecting one end of rubber tube to gas board inlet and other end to gas filter. The analyzer power was switched on. It took 30 seconds to remove residual gas The indicator shows 0% of methane and carbon dioxide. The longer tip of gas filter was connected to the gas collecting pipe of gas jar. If the pressure of the gas is higher, the gas circulates freely and indicator starts to show the percentage of methane and carbon dioxide. If the gas pressure is low, then suction switch is pressed and analyzer starts to vibrate and indicator shows the percentage of methane and carbon dioxide.

d. Temperature: The temperature of the slurry was measured with the simple mercury thermometer of ranges 0°C to 100°C. The temperature was always checked after gas was extracted by dipping thermometer through aluminum tube which is fixed in the cork. But the aluminum tube was close by clipping all the time.
51   

CHAPTER 5 KITCHEN WASTE SURVEY 5.1 Introduction The kitchen waste generation was surveyed in various families. The survey was basically done to find out the per head generation of kitchen waste. It also covers the per head consumption of food.

5.2 Factors Influencing Kitchen Waste Generation Following factors were found to be affecting the kitchen waste generation: a. No. of members in the family The kitchen waste was found to be increased as the no. of members in the family increased. b. Family background (or status) The culture and financial status affected the kitchen waste generation. c. Eating habit and local food availability People with different eating habit produced different wastes. Also the food availability in the local market differs the waste generation.

5.3 Limitation a. The weight of the food consumed could not be weighted properly. b. Less no. of samples was taken.

5.4 Research Methodology a. Sampling Sampling was done so that the survey covered the people of different caste. Mostly, Newar, Chhetri, and Brahmin were included.

52   

b. Instrumentation One page questionnaire set was developed as survey instrument to measure the per head kitchen waste generation. This questionnaire set is provided in appendix F. c. Data Collection Process Data were collected with the help of questionnaire. The data were collected in written or oral form. d. Data Analysis Data analysis was done with the help of weighted arithmetic mean. The tables of consumption and production are provided in the appendix F.

5.5 Result of the Study The max amounts of kitchen waste produced are rice, cabbage, mustard waste and banana. The production of kitchen waste per head from calculation was found to be 0.468 kg per head per day but it can only be at tentative data as lesser number of samples was taken.

53   

CHAPTER 6 GAS PRODUCTION AND ANALYSIS 6.1 Experiment in 200L Drum Two drums of 200 L capacity each were fabricated as explained in ‘Construction of biogas plant’ in October 3rd and October 10 of 2008 respectively. The set-ups were established as explained in chapter ‘Material and Methods’. Insulation was done with the help of straw webbed in black plastic. The first plant was kept in Ombahal, Kathmandu at open space of top floor of a house, second plant was kept at top floor of CES (Centre for Energy Studies) building. Cow dung mixed with water was left for biogas production in both the drums. In first plant first production of gas was observed in 24th day after installation. Flame test was carried, but it showed negative result. The gas flow took place only for 10 seconds. On 27th day, again for 10 seconds gas was observed but this time too, the gas extinguished the flame giving clear indication of CO2 gas abundance. Again in 33rd day for 6 seconds gas was observed but this time too non-ignitable. Finally on 58th day, the plant was discarded. Same was with the case of 2nd biogas plant kept at CES. On 20th day check, for 6 seconds gas was produced. Similarly for 15 seconds gas was observed in 30th day, 16 seconds in 41st day. This plant was also discarded on 51st day. The major reason behind discarding the plants was not being able to control temperature even with insulation. The differences in temperatures at night and day times vary greatly. By consulting Mr. Harka Man Limbu (who is conducting thesis and experiment on similar biogas plant using kitchen waste), it was known that if methanogens are active by summer, then only there is a little chance of production of biogas from the plant.

54   

The temperature patterns in two plants were almost same. The maximum and minimum temperatures are shown in graph below.

Figure 6.1: Temperature Profile for 200L Drum (Ombahal)

Figure 6.2: Temperature Profile for 200L Drum (CES)

Thus, the temperature couldn’t be controlled. So, 20 L jar plant was opted in room condition.

55   

6.2 Experiment in 20 L Jars Plants each consisting of different feed materials viz; banana peels, cabbage leaves, rice and potato were set up. The production of biogas was performed using a 20L volume jar single stage digester. The experiments were carried at different times and first banana peels were tried. In all the experiments, focus was given to following parameters. a) Total volume of gas generated Note: The gas before pH rise wasn’t considered. b) Methane content in the gas c) pH fluctuation pattern

6.2.1

From Banana Peels (Plant I)

The moisture content, C/N ratio and pH values are already mentioned in previous chapter ‘Material and Methods’. The experiment was carried out in a room with insulation by using straw. As it was winter condition, the temperature further reduced. Later to maintain temperature, 1200W heater was used. Due to various circumstances at the time, temperature couldn’t be maintained. Also pH went on falling. The whole experiment was carried out in physophillic range. The following graphs shows the temperature and pH fluctuations.

Figure 6.3: Temperature and pH Profile for Plant I

56   

On fifth week, about 750 gm of chalk powder was used. Also 1 liter of water was added. But pH didn’t improve. So, the plant was discarded.

6.2.2

From Cabbage Leaves (Plant II)

Experiment on biogas plant consisting cabbage leaves was carried out just one week after the plant for banana peels was constructed. Similar as plant for banana peels¸ the experiment was carried out in a room with insulation by using straw. As it was winter condition, the temperature further reduced. Later to maintain temperature, 1200W heater was used. Due to various circumstances at the time, temperature couldn’t be maintained. Also pH went on falling. fluctuations. The following graphs shows the temperature and pH

Figure 6.4: Temperature and pH Profile for Plant II

There is a lapse in reading between 11th day and 29th day due to the circumstances in college. On the 30th day, 420 gm chalk powder was added and 2L water was also added but pH didn’t improve till 36th day to pH 5. On 47th day 100 gm CaO was added to increase pH to 6. But on 65th day, pH reduced to 5 again. The plant was discarded on 69th day.

57   

6.2.3

From Rice (Plant III)

In above two experiments, pre-fermentation wasn’t done. The rice was pre-fermented two days. Also it was determined to carry out experiment in mesophilic range. The temperature was tried to control through the use of 65 watts heaters using water pool as stated in previous chapter ‘Construction of biogas plant’ for rice. The temperature was difficult to control due to irregular electrical supply & the temperature varied some days largely thus hampering the methanogens’ activities. Following chart shows the fluctuation of temperature and pH.

Figure 6.5: Temperature Profile for Plant III

Large fluctuations were observed until about week third. The room temperature by then has reached about 19 °C so; it was decided to keep it in room temperature by covering with straw again. Also, the pH showed no sign of increment so, by titration and hit and trial method, 100 gm lime (CaO) was added to increase pH to 5. pH was raised to 5 from 4 by adding 100gm of CaO, the gas was generated. The gas generated before this was not taken in consideration. Following the increment in pH, the pressure increased in the plant due to gas production. Before the pressure reached above
58   

12 KPa, volume of gas was analyzed with gas analyzer and collected through downward displacement of water. Again in about 30th day, the ph raised to 6. The volume of gas generated was collected 18 times in different time. The total cumulative volume was about 67.61 liters up to the 71st day.

Figure 6.6: Volume Profile for Plant III

 

Initially, the methane content was very low as shown in above chart. Probable reasons for low methane content may be as follows. i. ii. Initial temperature fluctuation couldn’t be controlled. Initial steep pH drop couldn’t be controlled. It may be due to not enough prefermentation. But from 41st day, the methane content gradually increased and reached up to 44.8% by volume in 72th day.

59   

6.2.4 From Potato (Plant IV) This plant was installed in February 15, 2009. It was insulated by polystyrene thermo-cot. Four days were allowed for pre-fermentation. The following graph represents pH and temperature variation.

Figure 6.7: Temperature and pH Profile for Plant IV

The pH fell considerably in 2 weeks and so on 15th day, pH was increased to 6 by adding lime (CaO) about 180gm by hit and trial method. In 31st day, it increased to 7.
Volume
100 90 80 %   70 n i 60   e 50 m u l 40 o 30 v 20 10 0 21 22 26 2829 30 31 32 33 34 36 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Days
Figure 6.8: Volume Profile for Plant IV

l i 6t 5r 4e
7 3 2 1 0 Volume in litre CO2 % CH4 %

60   

The methane content in biogas gradually increased up to 38.5% in 38th day by volume and carbon dioxide content gradually decreased. A total of 47.04 L of gas was collected up to 44th day. The temperature was maintained around 20°C. The pattern of obtained volume of gas was reminiscence to normal distribution. The complete collection of gas couldn’t be done due to time limitation.

6.2.5 From banana peels (Plant V) 6 kg banana peels were grinded to pieces and left for pre-fermentation for 22 days. 1 kg of cow dung along with six and half liter of water and half a liter of cow urine were mixed. In this case also, polystyrene was used for insulation and it was kept in warm room. The pH chart showed following result up to the thirty-first day after installation. The maximum temperature was 22°C and minimum was 19°C during the experiment.  
Temperature and pH profile
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 1 3 5 7 9 11131517192123252729313335373941 Days
Figure 6.9: Temperature and pH Profile for Plant V

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

pH

) C °   ( e r u t a r e p m e T

Min  tempera ture Max.  tempera ture pH

 

In first week, in total 110 gm of CaO was added two times. During first 15 days, gas was collected and analyzed twice; first time in seventh day, and second time in thirteenth day. Total 110 gm of CaO was added two times in the first week so that sharp fall of pH could be reduced.
61   

Following chart shows the gas collected.
Volume
2.5 s 2 e r t i l 1.5   n i   e m 1 u l o V 0.5 0 76.2 63.5 59.8 55 28

%

18.2 8.1

24

90 80 70 60 50 49.5 48.2 47.5 44.2 45.2 40 30 29.4 29.8 30.2 29.6 28 20 10 0

Gas  collected in  L Methane %

7th 13th 20th 26th 30th 34th 36th 38th 41st Day
Figure 6.10: Volume Profile for Plant V

 

The methane content was found high and carbon dioxide content low than previous feeds. The methane content has gradually increased and carbon dioxide content has gradually decreased. The volume of gas obtained was rather fluctuating in pattern. In total, nine times the gas was collected. A total of 15.91 L was obtained till 41st day. The maximum methane content was observed 30.2 % in 38th day. The complete collection of gas couldn’t be done due to time limitation.

62   

CHAPTER SIX FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 6.1 Introduction The general approach for carrying out the economic and financial analysis follows the conventional practice where benefits and cost streams are first estimated on a common basis. For a project to be feasible and viable, the benefits should be more than the costs. Financial analysis is the most commonly used tool that helps to decide whether a benefits by installing a biogas plant and if so, by how much. The basic underlying assumption for financial analysis is people will adopt a new technology only if they expect it to have a positive impact in their financial situation. In financial analysis, all costs and benefits are valued from the point of view of the user for whom this is being done. Since, this analysis is undertaken before making a decision to install the plant, it is important to ensure that all costs and benefits are estimated as they are most likely to be realized by the user after the plant installation. (FAO, 1996)

6.2 Major Parameters for the Financial Analysis The major parameters that need to be considered for the financial viability of biogas plants are discussed below. The parameters are evaluated only for the batch digester considering 60 days life for a batch which means six batches a year. The volume of gas per batch is considered to be 18 litres per batch of useful gas.

6.2.1 Project Life and Salvage Value According to American-Eurasian Network for Scientific Information, the life of the continuous kitchen waste based Biogas Gas Holder is over 10 years and that of the batch digester is above 5 years. However, the economic life of the batch plant is assumed 5 years mainly because any cost or benefits accrued after 5 years will have insignificant value when discounted to the present worth.

63   

The salvage value of biogas plant is not generally included in the benefit stream of financial analysis because after 5 years of operation, the plant or its parts will not be resalable.

6.2.2 Benefits or Inflows The benefits of biogas technology are as follows: 6.2.2.1 Fuel Saving Benefit of a biogas plant is realized by the family in terms of the cost avoided in purchasing firewood and/or kerosene. It is generally estimated that if the biogas plant is not constructed, a wood fuel cooking stove in rural areas or kerosene stove in semi urban or urban areas will be constructed to meet the coking energy demand of the household. So the saving on these fuels is considered as benefit due to biogas plant construction.

6.2.2.2 Emission Benefits In addition, these cooking stoves emit gases, which contribute to the green house gas (GHG) effects, where as biogas plant is considered as a clean source of energy in terms of air pollution and GHG emissions. An added benefit is thus attributed to biogas plant by allocating a benefit equal to the equivalent amount of greenhouse gases that would be emitted by an equivalent thermal plant considering the quantity of GHG emissions and proxies for the environmental cost of those emissions. Although the bio-slurry produced from the biogas plant reduces the CH4 and N2O emission for replacing cooking fuels and the household consumption of chemical fertilizers, these emissions are not counted for benefits in the project. a. Emission Reduction from Biogas Plant The constructed biogas plant is mostly used for cooking. The major contribution for the GHG emission reduction is through the switching of wood fuel in rural area and kerosene in semi urban or urban area. Study conducted on the GHG emission reduction potential shows that, in an average each biogas plant helps to reduce seven tones CO2 equivalent

64   

per year (BSP-N). The GHG emission and emission factors due to the combustion of various fuels are shown on table 6.1. Table 6.1 Emission Sources and Emission Factors for Various Fuels Emission Sources Kerosene GHG/Process Emission Factor 2.41 kg/l CO2 eq Sources IPCC, 1996. IPCC, 1996. Smith CH4 from burning 3.9 g/kg 0.0819 kg/kg et.al., 2000.

CO2 from burning

2.41 kg/l

CO2 from burning Fuel wood

1.83 kg/kg

1.83 kg/kg

b. Benefits Estimation Benefits of the biogas plant are estimated by the saving on alternate fuel used for cooking purpose and emission reduction benefits are considered. Wood fuel and kerosene are considered for the replacement of biogas. • Alternate fuel saving benefits

Cost of alternative fuel = Caf Annual saving of alternative fuel = Maf Annual fuel saving benefit = Caf x Maf • Emission Benefits

CO2 emission from fuel wood Emission factor = 1.83 kg CO2/kg of fuel wood. CH4 emission from fuel wood
65   

Emission factor = 3.9 g CH4/kg of fuel wood GWP of CH4 = 21 tCO2eq/tCH4. CO2 emission from kerosene Emission factor = 2.41 kg CO2/l kerosene Overall emission factor per each fuel= CO2 emission from alternate fuel saving in tCO2eq Transaction cost of CO2 = $ 7/tonCO2eq Emission benefit = $ (Annual CO2 emission reduction (tons) x 7) + CH4 emission from alternate fuel saving

6.2.2.3 Valuation of Slurry Slurry from a biogas plant is known to have better influence on soil and its productivity compared to the use of fresh or composted dung. During the process of anaerobic digestion, some enzymes and vitamins are produced. Also, bio-chemical composition of some of the nutrients such as nitrogen is changed and becomes more readily available for plants. The money value of such benefits depends on whether the slurry is actually used and the benefits realized by the particular user for whom the financial analysis is done. The value of slurry cannot be included in the financial analysis as the potential increase in crop yield is not actually realized by the use of slurry. However, it should be noted that slurry has a potential to increase the income or saving of a farmer and needs to be considered whenever it is very likely that the actions will be taken to realize such benefits. Such possible benefits should not be included in the financial analysis until there is a strong reason to believe that such opportunity will actually be realized by the user in a definite time frame in the future. So, valuation of slurry is not taken for benefits.

66   

6.2.3 Costs or Outflows There are various costs which should be considered for the valuation purposes. Since only batch digester is considered for the financial analysis, therefore only cost accrued for the batch digester is taken into account. 6.2.3.1 Investment cost The investment cost is initial cost to construct the whole biogas plant. It includes • • Cost of materials Cost on pipes and appliances

The cost of construction of the biogas plant of 0.2m3 is detailed in APPENDIX B. The total plant cost is N.Rs.3,026 for the continuous plant and N.Rs.520 for the batch digester. However, transport cost of material, pipes and appliances are excluded.

6.2.3.2 Operation and Maintenance (O and M) Cost The Operation and Maintenance cost includes the labor, time and use of resources like kitchen waste, feeding it in digester, and collect necessary water. In addition to the time spent on O and M, additional cost may accrue in changing gas valves and pipes and procuring technical support services from biogas companies. This cost is estimated as N.Rs. 20. The operation and maintenance costs for the batch digester includes the time required to prepare slurry for charging, recharge the digester, and make arrangement for the supply of the gas produced to the burner.

6.2.4 Cash Flow Analysis The basic procedure of a cash flow analysis is to enter all the year-by-year income to be received over the estimated life of the project as inflows. Similarly, yearly expenditures are entered in the analysis as outflow. Finally, for each year, expenditure is deducted from the income. The result thus arrived at is the net cash flow or net benefit. Generally, in the initial period of the project, the net cash flow tends to be negative, because of the expenditures incurred to meet the establishment costs.
67   

6.2.5

Net Present Worth (NPW) Criterion

As the costs and benefits of a project are spread over the useful years of project life, they need to be discounted so that all values could be compared to the value of a single year. The discounted net cash flow will provide a widely used criterion for measuring the profitability of a project. For this purpose, all purpose, all future values are discounted to make them equivalent to the present value and is expressed as Net Present Worth (NPW) or Net Present Value (NPV) which determines whether or not the project is an acceptable investment. The basic procedures for applying the present worth criterion to a typical investment project are (Park, 2002) • Determine the interest rate that the firm wishes to earn in its investments. This interest rate is called as Minimum Attractive Rate of Return (MARR). • • • • • Estimate the service life of the project. Estimate the cash inflow for each period over the service life, Estimate the cash outflow over each service period. Determine the net cash flows Find the present worth of each net cash flow at the MARR. Add up these present worth figures, their sum is defined as the project’s NPW. PW(i)= ∑An/(1+i)n Where PW(i)= NPW calculated at i An= Net cash flow at the end of period n i=MARR n= Project life • A positive NPW means that the equivalent worth of the inflow is greater than the equivalent worth of the outflows. This means the project makes a profit. If PW(i)>0, accept the investment.
68   

If PW(i)=0, remain indifferent If PW(i)<0, reject the investment.

6.2.6 Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is defined as the discount rate which makes the NPW of the project equal to zero. In other words, IRR is that discount rate which makes the discounted benefits of the project equal to its discounted costs. The decision rule for the simple project is as follows: If IRR>MARR, accept the project. If IRR=MARR, remain indifferent If IRR<MARR, reject the project 6.3

Result of Financial Analysis

The detail calculations of financial analysis for the substitution of firewood and Kerosene are shown in APPENDIX I. In this calculation NPV, IRR and Payback period are used as financial indicators. Table 6.2 Financial Evaluation of the Biogas Plant for Kitchen Wastes NPV, Name of substituted fuels Firewood Kerosene N.Rs. -606.43 -601.59 IRR, % Payback periods, yrs:month -

The result of financial analysis indicates that the batch type biogas plant feeding kitchen wastes is not feasible for both firewood and kerosene because the NPW is negative and the IRR is far less than the opportunity cost in the capital market which is about 10 %. And, also the NPW for the kerosene is less negative than the NPW for firewood.
69   

CHAPTER 8 LIMITATIONS 1. The temperature fluctuation was the major parameter for the biogas plant. It couldn’t be controlled properly although various insulations were applied. 2. The temperature was fairly low when the project was initiated. It hampered the biogas formation process. The suitable temperature is considered as 35°C (Rai, 1996). In the months; November, December, January and February; the ambient temperature ranged from below 5°C to 29°C. The room temperature was about 15°C and less. 3. The pH analysis was made with pH paper. So, the intermediate data couldn’t be generated. 4. The biogas was collected through downward displacement of water of pH 5. The pressure was fairly high. The report hasn’t accounted for the carbon dioxide mixing with water and has considered it as negligible. 5. The comparative analysis of biogas production from different feeds couldn’t be done as similar set of circumstances couldn’t be maintained in those plants. 6. The survey couldn’t be carried with greater sample population. 7. During financial analysis, the financial benefits of wastes like slurry and others couldn’t be quantified. The 200 L biogas plant couldn’t be financially analyzed.

70   

CHAPTER 9 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

9.1 Recommendations for the 200L Plant Design a. There was water loss due to seepage in the joints of outlet pipe. This is due to the movement of the pipe in pressure. So, the outlet pipe should be connected with screw thread system. b. Better insulation and heating system could be provided with techniques like trombe wall or solar hut.

9.2 Recommendations for the High Biogas Generation from Kitchen Wastes a. Further study could be carried out by adjusting suitable values of the factors like C/N ratio, pH value and temperature by available methods. b. The banana peels, potato peels, and rice could be used for better production of biogas. c. Enough pre-fermentation time; preferably 15 to 20 days will lead to better yield. d. The use of hydrolytic enzymes can be used to accelerate the biogas production.

9.3 Recommendations for the Further Study a. Feasibility study of other bio-degradable wastes from kitchen wastes can be done. In this project work the results show that there is production of biogas using kitchen wastes like rice, banana and potato wastes. Other degradable wastes may also have sufficient gas production potential. The mixed kitchen wastes also can be tried. b. Comparison of bio-slurry produced from vegetable wastes and that produced from other composting methods like aerobic composting, vermi-composting for use as a fertilizer can be done.
c. The pH level at low temperature was found difficult to control. The constant heat

providing mechanism during winter time using other wastes at considerable price can be studied for. 
    71   

9.4 Conclusion Average daily production of the Kitchen wastes from homes of middle class and lower middle class per head of Kathmandu valley is 0.468 kg per head per day. The 20 L water jar was used for the study of biogas generation from some of the kitchen wastes. Batch digestion was used and 0.5 to 1 kg of cow dung was used in different plants. Existing slurry was tried, not to be used to find the real potential of each individual feeds. The methane content by volume in the biogas was observed low whereas the carbon dioxide content was fairly high. This can be justified with fluctuating temperature, low ratio of base diameter to depth of the jar, and not enough pre-fermentation. However in the plant V, the pre-fermentation time was more, temperature fluctuation was less; which in the end yielded higher percentage of methane content. The pH at first was observed to be decreased and then increased after some days. The acetogenesis followed by methanogenesis can be accounted for this. The generation of biogas increased, reached maximum value and gradually decreased with time. This is due to decreasing availability of feed for the methanogens, as the feed was provided in a single batch only. However the rice, potato (cooked), and banana peels produced higher volume of biogas. The cabbage fairly lacked the potential than these three. The Maximum methane (CH4) percentage of Potato was 38.5%, Rice was 44.8% and that of banana was 30.2%. Gas was burned freely and gently with blue flame when methane concentration of gas was greater than 32%. It can be concluded that use of rice, potato, and banana peels help to yield greater volume of biogas. The financial analysis of the 20L biogas plant using kitchen wastes was not found feasible. This was due to insufficient production of gas from small batch. The experiment showed that the practical implementation of producing biogas is somewhat difficult. 
72   

REFERENCES • Karki, Dr. A.B., Shrestha, Prof. J.N., and Bajgain, S., 2005, Biogas as Renewable Source of Energy in Nepal Theory and Development, Biogas Support Program (BSP), Nepal. • • • Rao, C. S., 2000, Environmental Pollution Control Engineering, New Age International, India. Park, C.S., 2002, Contemporary Engineering Economics, 3rd Edition, Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India ISBN: 81-203-2143-X. Aryal, S., 2006, “Study of generation of biogas from cattle dung and grasses”, M.Sc. Thesis in Renewable Energy Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Tribhuvan University, Nepal. Bajgain, S., 2003, "Biogas in Nepal- Development, Opportunities and Challenges", Processing of International Conference on Renewable Energy Technology for Rural Development, 12-14 October2003, Kathmandu, Nepal. Dhakal, N. R., 2002, “Microbial Digestion of Vegetable and Kitchen Wastes for Biogas Production”, M.Sc. Thesis, Central Department of Microbiology, Tribhuvan University, Nepal. Tiwari, G. N. and Ghosal, M. K., 2005, Renewable Energy Resources Basic principles and Opportunities, Narosa Publication, India. Dhakal, N. R., Patrabansh, S., Karki, A. B., Sharma, A. P. and Adhikari, S., 2003, "Use of Vegetable and Kitchen Wastes as Alternative Feedstocks for Biogas Production", Processing of International Conference on Renewable Energy Technology for Rural Development, 12-14 October2003, Kathmandu, Nepal. Tamrakar, P.M., Palikhel D.R., Maharjan D., 2006,Project report on Puxin biogas Movie-Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) http://www.biogasworks.com - Microbes in AD. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html http://www.lpgforyou.com/physical.htm http://www.nepalnews.com/weather.htm http://www.topsaving.com
73   

• •

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • •

www.artiindia.com (Appropriate Rural Technology Institute- India ) www.barc.com (“Nuclear Agriculture and Biotechnology Division" of BARC) www.wikipedia.com www.hedon.com www.cst.net www.webhop.org www.methanetomarkets.org www.kriegfisher.com www.library.witpress.com www.bt.com www.pcret.gov.pk

74   

APPENDIX- A Photos
Inlet Outlet

Digester 

 
Continuous Feed Digester Plant

 
Insulation by Styrene Foam and Hot Water Pool

  Cork

 Gas outlet  pipe 

 

 
Pressure Gauge to Check Gas Pressure inside Plant

Alternative Design (20 L Jar- Batch Type)

 

 
Insulated System (Heater) Gas Analyzer

 

75   

APPENDIX B Construction Procedure of 20L Jar Biogas Plant

 
1. Inserting glass and aluminum tubes 3.

 
Placing thermometer inside aluminum tube dipped inside slurry

 

 
2. Placing it in the mouth of the jar 4.

 
Attaching plastic tube with glass tube

   

76   

APPENDIX C Physiological Properties of Constituent Gases of Biogas
Gas NH3 Specific Gravity1 0.6 Odor sharp pungent Color none Min % 16 Max % MIO2 (ppm) 53 MAC3 (ppm) 100 400 700 1,700 3,000 CO2 1.5 None None 5,500 20,000 30,000 40,000 60,000 300,000 H2S 1.2 Rotten Smell none 4 46 0.7 20 100 200 500 1000 500,000 60 60 30 30 30 Concentration4 (ppm) Exposure5 Period (min) 30 Physiological6 Effects Irritant Irritation of throat Irritation of eyes Coughing and frothing Asphyxiating. Could be fatal. Asphyxiant Safe Increased Breathing Drowsiness, headache. Heavy, asphyxiating breathing Could be fatal. Poisonous.

CH4

0.5

none

none

5

15

-

-

Asphyxiate Headache, nontoxic

Note: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Specific gravity is the ratio of the weight of pure gas to standard atmospheric air. If number is less than one, the gas is lighter than air other wise it is heavier. MIO in expanded form is the Minimum Identifiable Odor which is threshold odor, i.e. the lowest concentration (highest dilution) level that enables detection. MAC in expanded form is the Maximum Allowable Concentration which is the concentration prescribed by the health authorities at the maximum allowable in atmosphere in which people can work during 8-10 hour period. These levels need be lower in confinement units as animals stay in such environment continuously for 24 hours. Concentration in parts of the pure gas in million parts of atmospheric air. For changing the concentration to percent by volume, the listed number is to be divided by 10,000. Exposure period is the time during which effects of noxious gas are felt by an adult human being or an animal (especially pig) of about 150 lb weight. Physiological effects are those that occur in adult human beings; similar effects would be felt by animal weighing 150 lb, lighter animals will be affected sooner and at lower levels, heavier animals at later times and higher concentrations.

Source: Hills, D.J., Firbank, W.C., Methane Generation from Agricultural Wastes, A Report, Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of California, Davis, Jan, 1979.

77   

APPENDIX D Biogas plant-GGC 2047 Model and Dimensions of Different Components of Various Sized Bio-Gas Plants

78   

APPENDIX E Gas Collection through Downward Displacement of Water
 

1. Filling the known volume of measuring cylinder

3. Placing the cylinder vertical

4. Adding water in trough 2. Not letting the water of cylinder to escape

5. Letting gas pipe in the cylinder
79   

6. Opening the cork and letting the gas inside measuring cylinder 7. Continuing the gas flow

8. Towards the end- checking the volume occupied by gas

80   

APPENDIX F Survey Formats and Reports
No. of house where survey carried out: 13 1. Format of questionnaire Kitchen waste survey:  Date (ldlt):  Name (gfd): No. of Family members (kl®jf®sf ;b:øfx¿sf] ;+Vøff): Address (7]ufgf):  CONSUMPTION (daily): (b}lgs vkt)        i. Rice(eft):           ii  Vegetables (t®sf®Lx¿ ):  a.  b.  c.  d.  e.  f.  iii.   Fruits (kmnk'mnx¿)  a.  b.  c.  d.  e.    iv. Others( cGøf):    Per Day Quantity of waste (Ps lbgdf lg:sg] efG5fsf] kmf]xf]®x¿)   S.N  Name  I  II  III  IV  V  VI  VII                   

 

 

in kg

  Kg                 

 

 

 

81   

2. An example of filled questionnaire
Kitchen waste survey:  Date (ldlt): 15 March 2009  Name (gfd): Bidya Devi shakya No. of Family members (kl®jf®sf ;b:øfx¿sf] ;+Vøff): 7 Address (7]ufgf): Ombahal, kathmandu  CONSUMPTION (daily): (b}lgs vkt)        ii. Rice(eft):                   ii  Vegetables (t®sf®Lx¿ ):  a. Potato         b. Cabbage               c. Mustard  d. Cauliflower         e. Reddish           iii.   Fruits (kmnk'mnx¿)  a. Banana         b. Apple         c. Papaya        d. Carrot           v. Others( cGøf):    Per Day Quantity of waste (Ps lbgdf lg:sg] efG5fsf] kmf]xf]®x¿)   S.N  Name  I  II  III  IV  V  VI  Rice  potato  cabbage  Mustard waste     

             

              

in kg 1  0.3  0.3  0.4  0.3  0.2       

       

       

1  0.5  1  1 

  Kg  0.2  0.02  0.03  0.2     

 

 

 

82   

3. Table: Consumption of Food
S. N Fami ly No. of family memb ers (ni) 4 7 9 17 4 4 3 3 6 6 4 3 7 ∑ ni=77 Consumption(in Kg) Food(in Kg) ric e 1.5 `2 2 4 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 1.6 6 1 0.6 2 pota to 0.2 0.5 0.5 2 0.25 0.2 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.15 Pump kin 1.0 0.2 0.25 Cabba ge 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.25 0.2 0.1 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 musta rd 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.25 0.5 spina ch 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 Radi sh 0.5 1.5 0.2 0.25 0.5 bana na 0.3 0.5 1 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 1 0.5 0.3 1 oran ge 0.4 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 Fruits(in Kg) app le 0.5 1 1 1 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.2 1 0.5 0.3 carr ot 0.3 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.5 papa ya 0.5 1 1 grap es 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Note: The blank spaces or hyphen (-) represents nil consumption.

83   

4. Table: Production of Waste
S.N Family Food (in Kg) Production (in Kg) Fruits (in Kg) Total Waste(Xi) (ni*xi)

Rice

Potato peel 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.025 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03

Mustard roots 0.1 0.1 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.15 0.03

Cabbage cover 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05

Tea waste 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.02 -

Banana cover 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.15 0.2 0.2

Apple waste 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.005 0.02 0.01

Papaya cover 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.33 0.99 5.32 36 0.45 0.54 0.67 0.445 0.185 0.29 0.37 0.275 0.58 0.32 0.32 1.8 3.78 6.03 7.565 0.74 1.16 1.11 0.825 3.48 1.92 1.28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

0.1 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.02

13

12

0.3 ∑=1.00 ∑=0.175

0.1 ∑=0.93

0.05 ∑=0.61 ∑=0.13

0.3 ∑=2.25

0.01 ∑=0.14

0.3

0.76 ∑ni*xi

 

Weighted mean method: X=∑(xi ni)/∑ ni Where, weight of waste xi = ni = no. of family X = 36/77 = 0.468 kg waste per day Therefore, per head waste = 0.468 kg per day
    84   

APPENDIX G Gas Production, Temperature and pH Data for Different Plants 29 12 1. Plant I (Banana)
Days 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 42 43 temperature 18 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 19 12 11 pH 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 11 12 13 12 14 15 14 14 14 14 14 16 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 16 25 25 25 25 28 28 28 20 25 27 24 29 19 19 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5

2. Plant II (Cabbage)
Days 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 temperature 18 18 18 17 15 15 15 16 18 18 15 pH 6 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

85   

3. Plant III (Rice)  
Days 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Temperature 19 20 22 25 30 23 24 25 24 20 28 25 24 23 28 25 17 25 25 25 30 31 19 18 pH 6 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 19 19 18 18 18 19 17 18 18 18 19 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 19 21 21 20 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 20 20 20 21 20 19 19 18 19 20 20 20 21 20 20 20 20 21 21 20 20 20 21 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Da ys 23 24 25 27 28 29 48 49 51

Volume in litre 1.35 2.23 5.04 7.9 6.16 7.03 2.73 3.06 2.23

CO2 % 85.3 78 90.1 89.2 87 83.5 86.2 83.4 87.5

CH4 % 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 4.3 6.8 8.1

53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

1.74 1.25 1.7 1.51 1.41 2.56 1.82 2.05 3.85 1.78 2

85.2 86.2 83.5 81.7 80.2 78.6 74.4 72.2 65.5 63.1 62.8

9.5 10.8 11.2 14.3 15.2 18.1 22.3 24.2 34.2 35.4 36.2

64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

1.32 1.9 1.22 0.6 1.18 0.52 0.92 0.65 0.9

59.4 53.2 46.4 36.3 36.2 40.4 38.6 34.2 35.5

37.5 38.9 36.4 37.8 38.6 36.8 37.2 37.6 44.8

86   

4. Plant IV (Potato)
Days  Max.   Min  pH  temperature  temperature  1  20  20  6  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  20  20  20  20  19  19  19  19  19  19  18  18  18  18  18  20  21  22  22  22  22  19  18  19  19  18  18  19  18  18  18  18  18  17  17  17  19  21  21  21  22  21  5  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  3  3  4  4  4  5  5  5  23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 21 21 22 23 23 22 22 22 23 22 22 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 20  20  21  22  22  22  22  22  22  21  21  20  20  20  20  21  21  21  20  21  21  21  20  5  5  5  5  6  6  6  6  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7 

Days  Volume in litre  CO2 %  CH4 %  21  5.49  91.3  5.1  22  1.6  85.4  6.8  26  1.36  86.2  6.9  28  2.42  89.8  7.1  29  1.73  90.9  7.9  30  1.93  89.5  8.1  31  5.1  78.6  16.1  32  5.45  74.6  23.4  33  5.65  59.9  25.6 

34 36 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

5.82 5.67 1.65 0.85 0.83 0.36 0.38 0.4 0.35 0.53

54.5  52.8  52.4  54.9  53.4  51.3  49.6  50.4  50.2  65.6 

26.4  34.8  38.5  34.5  32.8  33.4  22.4  24.6  23.1  28.2 

87   

5. Plant V (Banana)
Days 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Min temperature 20 20 20 20 20 19 19 19 19 19 19 18 18 18 18 19 20 21 21 21 Max. temperature 20 20 20 20 19 20 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 22 22 pH 6 5 5 5 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Day 7th 13th 20th 26th 30th 34th 36th 38th 41st

Gas collected in L 0.95 1.63 2.05 1.85 1.93 2.2 1.4 1.8 2.1

Methane % 8.1 18.2 24 28 28 29.4 29.8 30.2 29.6

CO2 % 76.2 63.5 59.8 55 49.5 48.2 47.5 44.2 45.2

88   

APPENDIX H Cost Details 1. Details of the cost of Continuous plant (200L Drum)
 

2. Details of the cost of 20 l JAR batch digester plant.

S.N.

Components

Cost in Rupees 1600 344 54 60

S.N.

Components

Cost in Rupees 300 30 20 25 15 20 90 20 Rs. 520

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Drum Door bent Elbow Nipple PVC pipe M-seal PVC seal Covering plastic Gas cork Pressure gauge Ph paper Straw Teflon tape

1. 2. 3. 4.

Jar Rubber cork Delivery tube Aluminium tube Level pipe Lime(CaO) Thermometer pH paper

235 40 140 125 128 150

5. 6. 7. 8.

Total cost
110 20 20 Rs. 3026 Total cost

89   

APPENDIX I Financial analysis for the substitution of firewood and kerosene 1. Financial analysis for the substitution of firewood
Investment cost of biogas plant (excluding instruments for testing) (N.Rs.) Discount rate (%) Efficiency of biogas stove measured at CES lab (%) Cost of wood(N.Rs./kg) Calorific value of wood (K. Cals. /Kg.) (www.lpgforyou.com/physical.htm) Efficiency of wood stove Calorific value of biogas (MJ/m3) Cumulative Energy for one year (MJ) Service life (yrs) Minimum attractive rate of return of investment (MARR, %) Carbon dioxide emission (kg CO2/kg of fuel wood) Methane emission ( g CH4/kg of fuel wood) GWP of methane (t CO2 eq/tCH4) Transaction cost of CO2 (N.Rs./tCO2 eq-yr) Rupees /$ as on 15th march 2009 395 10% 62.01% 6 4300 13.5% 18.855 2.064 5 10 1.83 3.9 21 $7 81.16

Annual CO2 Reduction Due to Biogas Plant = (CO2 emission from fuel wood saving + CH4 emissions from fuel wood saving) in tCO2eq

 
Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 Cash outflows Investment Interest Cost Amount 395 0 39.5 39.5 39.5 39.5 39.5 O and M Cost 0 20 20 20 20 20 Net Cash Outflow 395 59.5 59.5 59.5 59.5 59.5 Cash inflows Fuel Saving Benefit 0 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 Carbon Trading Benefit 0 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 NPV(N.Rs.) = Net Cash Inflow 0 3.72 3.72 3.72 3.72 3.72 -606.43 Net Cash Flow -395 -55.78 -55.78 -55.78 -55.78 -55.78 Ending Balance -395 -450.78 -506.56 -562.34 -618.12 -673.9

  90   

 

2. Financial analysis for the substitution of kerosene
Investment cost of Biogas Plant.(excluding instruments for testing) (N.Rs.) Discount rate (%) Efficiency of biogas stove measured at CES lab (%) Cost of kerosene(N.Rs./l) (NOC's ex-depot prices, 2006 March) Calorific value of kerosene (kJ/l) (www.engineeringtoolbox.com) Efficiency of Kerosene Stove Calorific value of biogas (MJ/m3) Cumulative Energy for 1 Year Service life (yrs) Minimum attractive rate of return of investment (MARR, %) Carbondioxide emission (kg CO2/l of kerosene) Transaction cost of CO2 (N.Rs./tCO2 eq-yr) Annual CO2 Reduction Due to Biogas Plant = CO2 emission from kerosene saving in tCO2eq
 

395 10 62.01 50 35,000 38.0% 18.855 2.064 5 10 2.41 $7

Years 0 1 2 3 4 5

Cash outflow Investment Interest Cost Amount 395 0 39.5 39.5 39.5 39.5 39.5

O and M Cost 0 20 20 20 20 20

Net Cash Outflow 395 59.5 59.5 59.5 59.5 59.5

Cash inflow Fuel Saving Benefit 0 4.866 4.866 4.866 4.866 4.866

Carbon Trading Benefit 0 0.132 0.132 0.132 0.132 0.132 NPV(N.Rs.) =

Net Cash Inflow 0 4.998 4.998 4.998 4.998 4.998 -601.59

Net Cash Flow -395 -54.502 -54.502 -54.502 -54.502 -54.502

Ending Balance -395 -449.502 -504.004 -558.506 -613.008 -667.510

  91   

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer: Get 4 months of Scribd and The New York Times for just $1.87 per week!

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times