1

The Mango Tree Project
Energy Audit and Recommendations
Agahozo-Shalom Youth Village
THE MANGO TREE PROJECT
A joint project between students from United States Air Force Academy, Tufts University and Washington University in St Louis
2
The Mango Tree Project
3
The Mango Tree Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tufts University
Michael Sidebottom, Tufts B.S. ‘10
Cody Valdes, Tufts B.A. ‘13
And Contributors: Fred Huang, Tufts B.S. ’10, Dante DeMeo,
Tufts M.S. ’10, Patrick Barber, Tufts B.S. ’10, Michael Vizner, Tufts B.S. ‘12
United States Air Force Academy
Second Lieutenant David Pool, USAFA ‘10
Cadet First Class Leif Lindblom, USAFA ‘11
Cadet Second Class David Shrift, USAFA ‘12
Washington University in St. Louis
Tegan Bukowski, WUSTL B.A. ‘10, Yale ‘13
National University of Rwanda/Brandeis University
Seth Karamage, M.A. Coexistence and Confict, Brandeis;
B.A. Economics, NUR.
The Mango Tree Project team wishes to thank its many generous support-
ers, partners, and friends who have made this endeavour, and this report, pos-
sible. This project was the frst of its kind for the all members involved, and has
left us with tremendous insights and invaluable friendships after an entire year
of collaboration. In particular, we wish to thank the Agahozo-Shalom Youth Vil-
lage, whose staff, youth, and leaders warmly invited us into their community and
their homes for the duration of our three-week assessment trip in January 2010.
Anne Heyman, Nir Lahav, and Alain Munyaburanga deserve special thanks for
their generous time and patience with us as we navigated our way through the
humbling process of understanding a new community in an unfamiliar country.
The individual groups of the Mango Tree Project wish to thank their own support-
ers as well. The United States Air Force Academy Mango Tree Project members
would like to thank the Dean of Faculty, Brigadier General Dana Born for her sup-
port and encouragement in the beginning stages of the project, the Civil and En-
vironmental Engineering Department for providing engineering guidance and
resources, the Department of International Programs for generously funding
the assessment visit, Captain Josh Aldred for technically reviewing the fnal re-
port, and Ms. Leslie Christensen for her help navigating the approval process.
The Tufts Mango Tree Project members wish to thank the Institute for Global Leadership,
its Director Sherman Teichman, and Assistant Director Heather Barry for their unwav-
ering support of this student-led initiative from its conception in September 2009. Their
guidance and enthusiasm for our project, which attempted to bring together students
from three universities and multiple departments to work together towards a single
objective, gave us the confdence we needed to turn our grand ambition into a reality.
The Washington University in St Louis team want to express gratitude to the Washington
University Sam Fox School of Design & Visual Arts School of Architecture for their im-
mense generosity in providing not one but two travel grants to travel to and from Rwanda.
Particularly, Dean Bruce Lindsey for his constant support and confdence in the team.
Also, Tegan Bukowski wishes to thank the Ghepardt Institute for their Civic Engagement
Scholarship. Without these contributions, the project would have been impossible.
THE TEAM TO OUR SUPPORTERS
I. Executive Summary
II. Rwanda 16 Years On
III. Village Energy Audit
IV. Recommendations
A. Renewable Power Production
B. Strategic Areas for Reduction and Education
V. Conclusion
VI. Appendices
A. Hourly Electricity Usage by Building Type
B. Phase 1 Energy Model Assumptions
C. Phase 2 Energy Model Assumptions
D. Energy Use by Appliance
E. Experimental Data Phase 1 & 2
F. Biogas Production Chart
G. Biogas Production Calculations
H. Thermosyphon Analysis
I. Thermosyphon Energy Savings
J. References
4
The Mango Tree Project
5
The Mango Tree Project
The Mango Tree Project is an endeavor among a multidis-
ciplinary team of university students to understand and im-
prove upon the current patterns of electricity consumption
of the Agahozo-Shalom Youth Village (ASYV), a youth re-
habilitation and education community located near the town
of Rwamagana in eastern Rwanda. The village, a non-proft
initiative of partners in the United States, Rwanda, and Israel
to provide a safe living and learning environment for vulner-
able and orphaned Rwandan youth, is home to 250 youth
and approximately 100 staff, a number which will double to a
full capacity of 700 in two years. It is currently facing consid-
erable barriers to achieving fnancial sustainability because
of high electricity and fuel costs, both of which were antici-
pated symptoms of Rwanda’s developing national energy
infrastructure at the village’s conception, but nevertheless
remain substantial obstacles now and even more so in the
immediate future as the village expands. As a team of stu-
dent researchers with practical experience in building design,
sustainable systems design, renewable energy and curricula
design, the Mango Tree Project (MTP) team set out with the
goal of providing the village with a comprehensive under-
standing of its current (and, where possible, future) electricity
consumption patterns, and then to provide guidance towards
implementing new systems for achieving cost-savings in the
near future.
Renewable energy technologies have advanced in sophis-
tication and affordability in the global energy market to the
point where they are currently the only reliable and afford-
able route to achieving long-term energy independence for
many developing communities. Until Rwanda’s quickly ex-
panding national electricity infrastructure has reached the
state where it can provide economical and reliable service
to energy-intensive ventures such as the ASYV, renew-
able energy sources will offer a secure and cost-effective
means to sustaining the village’s operations, provided that
they are properly sourced, installed, and cared for, and f-
nanced through a relatively large up-front injection of capi-
tal. Our energy audit has shown that at the current rates of
electricity consumption and purchase exchange from Elec-
trogaz, Rwanda’s national supplier, the village will be paying
roughly $55,000USD per year in two years time. The MTP
team thus recommends pursuing a solar thin-flm photovol-
taic power generation system, able to produce electricity for
various scales of need, to be designed and maintained in
partnership with local partners such as Great Lakes Energy
Ltd. and the Solar Electric Light Fund (SELF).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
6
The Mango Tree Project
7
The Mango Tree Project
As a uniquely transformative healing and rehabilitation com-
munity, ASYV is ideally placed to become a truly state-of-
the-art educational space for Rwanda’s most vulnerable
youth by specializing in these renewable technologies,
which represent the future for its under-25 generation. The
MTP team aims to provide ASYV with its expertise in as-
sessing and sourcing renewable technologies in order to
guide it towards its long-term fnancial and educational as-
pirations. The recommendations contained within this pro-
posal are thus intended to be practical and actionable while
remaining modest in light of our position as students, as out-
siders, and as individuals who will have minimal stake in any
action taken as a result of this report.
This report is intended to be read by any and all individuals
living or working in the village, those people who have a
stake or interest in the village from abroad, and, in particu-
lar, any individuals who may have an interest in support-
ing the Agahozo-Shalom Youth Village as it takes its frst
steps into renewable technologies and other energy-related
cost savings measures over the immediate and near-term
future. Ìt is thus organized as such: frst are some introduc-
tory notes on Rwanda’s immediate history and the context
in which ASYV has established itself, followed by the MTP’s
energy audit of the village, after which we present our rec-
ommendations for the production of energy, the reduction
of energy use, and the concomitant implementation of edu-
cational systems and materials surrounding the technology.
Rwanda will for generations be defned by the unspeakable
tragedy that brought it infamy in April 1994, when in just 100
days more than 800,000 Tutsis and Hutu moderates were
systematically slaughtered by extremist Hutus, marking the
nadir of a decade of instability within the heart of the Afri-
can continent. The scars of the genocide and its preceding
years of civil war have settled deep in the fabric of Rwandan
society, both physically and spiritually. While these scars
are stored most viscerally in the minds of the men, women,
and children who partook in or were victim to the genocide’s
inescapable violence, the most saddening manifestation of
the pogroms’ destruction was the unknowable number of in-
nocent children who came of age in its aftermath. For these
youth, life would be (and continues to be) defned by the
absence of familial support, or the well-intentioned efforts of
a functioning state bureaucracy to fll that void.
Today, Rwanda has an estimated 860,000 orphans of a total
population of nearly 10 million. What many see as Rwanda’s
saddest statistic presents a gargantuan barrier to unlocking
the immense human potential of the country’s under-25 gen-
eration. According to UNICEF, Rwanda is believed to have
the highest concentrations of orphans in the world. Many
of these children were orphaned during the genocide, while
others have lost parents to HIV/AIDS, the rates of which
have increased since the Hutu militias of 1994 used mass
rape as a systematic weapon of war.
At the same time, Rwanda has developed at a remark-
able pace over the last decade, and with ongoing confict
in neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo and vi-
olently-contested elections marring the Republic of Kenya
in 2007/8, it has fast risen from nothingness to emerge as
somewhat of an exemplar for the Central and East African
region. According to the World Bank’s 2007 World Gover-
nance Indicators, the country has surpassed expectations
of political stability, government effectiveness, and control
of corruption, and has rebuilt its governance structures with
remarkable speed. Rwanda has gained a reputation as a
leader in the continent in the reduction of corruption and
promotion of government accountability, having “built up
a culture of good governance, transparency and evidence
based policy making,” according to the Millennium Develop-
ment Goal Monitor
1
. With Africa’s largest solar power farm
now situated just seven kilometers from the capital city of
Kigali, Rwanda is also positioning itself to become a leader
in Africa’s renewable energy sector. And as part of its con-
tinued commitment to developing its core infrastructure, the
Rwandan government has endeavored to make its capital
city, Kigali, the frst fully wireless African city with high-speed
broadband coverage.
Nevertheless, the future of the country’s leadership in its
public, private, and cultural institutions faces considerable
challenges. Some have characterized the post-genocide
generation as a lost one, made passive and pliant by an
overabundance of paternalistic aid that has created a
1. Marie Chene, “Overview of Corruption in Rwanda,” Transparency International Anti-Corruption Resource Center. Available online at (http://www.u4.no/helpdesk/helpdesk/query.
cfm?id=164). Accessed December 13, 2009.
AGAHOZO SHALOM YOUTH VILLAGE RWANDA 16 YEARS ON
8
The Mango Tree Project
9
The Mango Tree Project
lacuna where Rwandan self-empowerment need take root.
This is unlikely, for the extraordinary demands imposed on
the individual – particularly parentless youth – in the wake
of the country’s civil war have often been beyond fathom.
Others would argue, more convincingly, that President
Paul Kagame’s 16-year tenure (extended in August 2010
for an additional 7 years) has only ingrained the passivity-
to-authority that yielded the genocide's startling effciency,
and which continues to extend beyond the country’s closed
political forum, into the classroom and the purviews of the
youth. No matter how much truth these broad characteriza-
tions contain, the reality is that hundreds of thousands of
Rwanda’s post-genocide youth have been forced to come
of age as heads of households, street orphans, manual
laborers, and by various other stunting means of survival
that have diminished their prospects for positive social in-
tegration and personal development. While the country has
taken remarkable steps in its long and diffcult struggle for
reconciliation, these developments have succeeded despite
the persistence of the genocide’s most glaring underlying
causes, including a lack of positive youth engagement. With
nearly ten percent of its national population orphaned and
a greater number considered to be vulnerable, Rwanda ur-
gently requires a sustained, concerted, and caring effort to
help this generation reclaim its vitality, trust, and entrepre-
neurial spirit.
This is the context in which ASYV has established itself as
a true leader in the rehabilitation and leadership develop-
ment of Rwanda’s youth. Of the challenges currently fac-
ing the village, the one identifed to the Mango Tree Project
as a primary barrier to longevity and sustainability in pur-
suit of these goals is the fnancial burden and uncertainty
of its electricity supply. Through our direct research into the
village’s primary points of electricity consumption and our
conversations and interactions with the directors and youth
of the village, we have gained a detailed understanding of
the village’s current electricity use patterns as well as an
informed projection of its future demand. We have shared
these fndings in the following pages and on our website,
http://www.mangotreeproject.org.
The scope of our energy audit was to accomplish the
following:
· To collect fxture specifcations for all energy
consuming devices in the village
· To document behavioral uses of energy,
particlarly with respect to those which are
amenable and signifcant, such as when and for
how long lights are kept in use
· To record actual village energy usage data for a
statistically signifcant period of time and develop
a model of the village’s current (Phase 1) energy
use over a typical 24-hour period
(See Figures 2 & 3)
· To extrapolate a model for predicting the village's
future (Phase 2) energy use, factoring in future
buildings and a population at maximum capacity
(See Figure 4)
Our research as it related to the energy consumption of the
village had a straight forward goal. This was to produce a
complete energy model by structure and by hour-of-day
for all energy usage in the village, which could inform any
future steps taken to develop a renewable energy power
generation system by the village and its partners. Prior to
our assessment of the village, its administrators had only a
rough idea of how much energy the village was using and
which points were drawing on the most energy in compari-
son to others. Our frst task amounted to discovering how
much money was being spent on each new block of energy
credits from Electrogaz, Rwanda’s national energy supplier,
and where this money was being used. (See Figure 6 for
Electrogaz Purchase Record). We have produced a working
model of energy use in the village that the village adminis-
trators will now be able to reference when talking about their
current energy use to potential funders, solar photovoltaic
systems experts, and other relevant parties.
The ultimate goal of our assessment is to provide the vil-
lage with sustainable energy design alternatives from which
to develop a strategic plan for increasing its independence
from the national grid. The funding and implementation of
our recommended systems will allow the village to become
more sustainable, both economically and in terms of its en-
vironmental impact.
III. VILLAGE ENERGY AUDIT
10
The Mango Tree Project
11
The Mango Tree Project
Fixture Specifcations
The frst task of the on-site assessment was to determine
the quantity and energy usage rating of all the appliances
and fxtures in the village. The identical construction of many
of the buildings allowed us to create several "typical¨ fxture
layouts that would each serve as a model for multiple build-
ings. We recorded as much information about each energy-
consuming device as possible, particularly the manufacturer
information, model number, and wattage of each, so that we
could create a physical layout of energy-consuming devices
by structure. Although it took us several days to completely
map out the village, this process entailed the strictly techni-
cal task of collecting the data, not yet interpreting it; that part
was addressed when analyzing the behavioral observations
we recorded. This data is available in Figure 1 and Appendix
D.
Experimental Data
The third task of the on-site assessment was to collect ac-
tual energy usage data. Prior to our assessment of the vil-
lage, the only estimate that village administrators had of
how much energy the village was using was based on how
often they needed to buy more energy credits. Because
Electrogaz sells electricity via a pre-paid, credit-based sys-
tem, the village had been purchasing a certain number of
kilowatt-hours at a fxed rate of 132 RWF (~0.23 USD) per
kWh.
ON SITE ASSESSMENT
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
The second task of the on-site assessment was to observe
the behavioral energy usage patterns of the children and
staff. Now that we had collected fxture data, we needed to
determine how and when these fxtures were being used.
The need to observe behavior and to hold focus groups
with the community members was the most critical reason
for travelling to Rwanda to perform an on-site assessment.
While in the village, we spoke with new students, return-
ing students, administrators, and house mothers about their
energy usage. Some sample questions we asked were the
following:
· What time do the youth here wake up? When do
they normally go to bed?
· How many times a day do the homes boil water us
ing electric kettles? What do they use them for?
· When does the computer get used in your house?
· When do you see lights on during daylight hours?
Which ones? For how long?
· When do you see lights on during nighttime
hours? Which ones? For how long?
What we learned from our time spent with the village youth al-
lowed us to create an accurate usage schedule; that is, a dia-
gram depicting how many of each type of energy-consuming
device are in use for each hour of the day. (See Figure 2) This
schedule became the backbone for the energy usage model,
which we could then compare against the experimental data we
had gathered.
Unfortunately, under this service model, the village did and
does not receive a monthly electricity usage statement, as
is common practice for post-paid utility service providers.
Therefore, we gathered this data on an hourly basis from
the village’s electricity meter to create a more accurate
measure of how much energy is being used every hour and
ensure that our model accurately represented the village’s
energy usage. (See Appendix E and Figure 5 below for ac-
tual data)
Figure 1 Children’s Home Energy Usage by Appliance
12
The Mango Tree Project
13
The Mango Tree Project
To properly model the energy usage of the village, we frst
organized the village’s structures into eight units based on
their usage and their similarity to one another. (See Figure
2 and Appendix A)
The eight structures are as follows:
· Single Children's Home (Typical)
· School Building
· Dining Hall
· Offce
· Art/Learning Center
· Other Clubhouses (Typical)
· Guest House (Typical)
· Miscellaneous
The label “Typical” indicates a structure that is representa-
tive of two or more near-identical structures and is used to
model all such structures. Each of these structures was or-
ganized by fxture type and by time of day. This meant that
we could adjust the number of any type of fxture in use at
any time of the day, which gave us the precise control nec-
essary to make the model refect both the observational and
experimental data that we had gathered. (See Appendix B
for the assumptions we used in modeling for Phase 1’s en-
ergy usage)
ENERGY MODEL
PHASE 1
Figure 2 Hourly Energy Usage Model by Building
14
The Mango Tree Project
15
The Mango Tree Project
We used our gathered data to create a high and a low estimate of hourly energy usage and used the average of these two as-
sessments as our model. Of signifcance for the purposes of this report and the village's plans to implement a renewable power
generation system is the time at which village power usage spikes. From 18:00 to 23:00 hours the village uses the greatest
relative amount of energy during a given day, but as solar power generation systems can not produce energy at this time (after
sunset), the village will still be forced to draw upon electricity from the grid or electricity stored in independent batteries from
the day’s solar production. This, of course, will incur additional costs for the village on top of solar power production systems.
The next task was to extrapolate the Phase 1 model to the size of the village when it becomes fully operation with 500 children and
150 – 250 staff and several new structures in 2012. There were several key assumptions that allowed us to do this effectively. (See
Appendix C for Phase 2 Assumptions) In particular were the following:
·The number of children in the village doubles (250 children to 500 children), causing the number of children's houses in use to also
double (16 houses to 32 houses).
·Although the total population more than doubles (300 people to ~700 people), the primary sources of energy consumption are the
children’s houses, so the increase in total energy consumption will be nearly proportional to the percent increase in children.
·Structures yet to be built will have similar energy usage to existing structures of the same purpose, but will be scaled in proportion to
the increase in children or staff members using that particular type of structure.
·Structures yet to be built will likely have a similar layout as those already in place (we were, however, unable to secure actual archi-
tectural plans for these structures), chiefy with respect to the location, type, and number of lights and appliances per room and number
of occupants.
In order to check this extrapolated model, we scaled up the experimental data we had gathered.
Figure 3 Hourly Energy Usage Phase 1
Figure 4 Hourly Energy Usage Model Phase 2
16
The Mango Tree Project
17
The Mango Tree Project
Because we had assumed that the increase in total energy consumption would be nearly proportional to the increase in the
number of children, we decided to scale up the experimental data by a factor of two. When we compared this Phase 2 experi-
mental data with the Phase 2 model we had created, the two sets of data matched up well. We decided to keep the assumption
that actual energy use will roughly double and adjusted the model accordingly to make it ft the Phase 2 experimental data.
There are several key points and conclusions to glean from
our energy audit, some of which have directly informed our
decision process while assessing various sustainable en-
ergy systems, and others that will support the village in un-
derstanding and curtailing its own energy usage.
The frst and most useful in the long term is the detailed
content of the audit itself. The village now has a concrete
model of how much energy it uses, both on an hourly and a
daily basis, that quantifes the amount of energy the village
uses and the cost associated with that energy use, both cur-
rently and when the village begins operating at full capacity
in roughly two years time.
The second is that the majority of the energy use is due to
lighting, primarily in the children’s homes and primarily dur-
ing the evening hours. This discovery (or confrmation) is an
important insight for the village’s staff and students, inform-
ing them about which hours of the day contribute most to
the village’s energy spending. (See Appendix A in particu-
lar) It also gave us guidance regarding where to focus our
energies in the reduction portion of our report, which led us
to concentrate particularly on making the village’s lighting
more effcient.
The fnal conclusion is refected in the cost summary.
Based on the extrapolated model, when the village is fully
operational, we predict the cost for energy will be nearly
31,000,000 RWF (55,000 USD) per year. (See Figure 6 for
Cost Summary) With the ultimate goal to foster as sustain-
able a fnancial model as possible for the village as it moves
entirely to Rwandan hands, the current and projected costs
are economically unsustainable. Therefore, by using this
foresight and data to craft potential solutions, the village and
its partners can help implement smart solutions that will re-
duce the yearly energy cost to a level that the village can
sustain on its own for many years to come.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 5 Hourly Energy Usage Phase 2
Figure 6 Cost Summary Phase 1 & 2
18
The Mango Tree Project
19
The Mango Tree Project
Problems Approach
In order to provide the most objective and holistic renewable
energy recommendations to ASYV, the Mango Tree Project
team considered multiple forms of renewable energy pro-
duction and evaluated each on their economic, social and
engineering value. The renewable energy methods as-
sessed were solar photovoltaic (thin flm and concentrated
solar), solar hot water, geothermal, wind, and biogas energy
production.

Our recommendations for the production of renewable en-
ergy will be limited to the direction we believe the village
should take when and if it decides to implement a power
generation system, at which time it will behoove the village
to obtain a realistic cost-quotation from a local partner with
local experience in the feld, such as Great Lakes Energy
Ltd. While presenting an accurate price for the landscap-
ing, ground preparation, designing, constructing, and main-
tenance of a solar array farm in the village grounds is out of
our technical scope, we have confdently concluded that a
solar photovoltaic thin-flm array will provide the most reli-
able and consistent supply of solar electricity to the village
and that our energy audit will greatly inform the design pro-
cess that accompanies it.
Design Factors
The Mango Tree Project Team considered several design
factors to rate each renewable energy method. Among
these, sustainability was determined to be the most impor-
tant factor.
A high level of sustainability ensures the production meth-
od will produce enough energy to reduce or eliminate the
village’s reliance upon outside sources of energy. Sustain-
ability also prescribes cradle-to-cradle system and material
design. The system must utilize local materials and techni-
cal support, as well as provide adequate supply of energy
to the village.

The economic feasibility of each system was also consid-
ered while evaluating each of the energy production meth-
ods. This factor did not serve as a decisive factor because
the team believed it best to leave this design constraint for
the village and its funders to assess, balancing the weight
and scope of this requirement with the long-term security
and cost-savings that such systems would provide.

Finally, each production system was evaluated for educa-
tional and social value. Again, the team did not deem this
design constraint a controlling requirement but kept it in
mind while determining all possible solutions. This is consid-
ered to be the social sustainability of the system. It must be
accepted and understood by the community to fully beneft
the village. We have supplemented our recommendations
here for the production of energy with a series of recommen-
dations for educational materials and systems adjoining the
production system, which will help bring the systems ‘to life’
for the youth, the primary stakeholders of the technology.

Each of these design constraints was applied to each power
generation system to evaluate the overall sustainability and
effectiveness.
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. RENEWABLE POWER PRODUCTION
Figure 7 ASYV Purchasing History
20
The Mango Tree Project
21
The Mango Tree Project
RESULTS
The Mango Tree Project Team has considered several dif-
ferent design solutions for ASYV. These design solutions
comprised of vastly different energy production methods
that would be implemented in different ways. The most eco-
nomic design solution is solar photovoltaic (thin flm) energy
production. Solar PV has the greatest potential for payback
within the next 20 years, has lower front-end cost, and is
easier to install and maintain in Rwanda. Based on the anal-
ysis provided, the solar photovoltaic energy production sys-
tem has the lowest estimated payback period of all available
technologies, though estimating an exact fgure is a matter
of conjecture.
2
Importantly, similar photovoltaic systems are
already in use in Rwanda. As a result, thin flm expertise and
markets for replacement parts exist in suffcient supply in
Rwanda, signifcantly cutting any maintenance/repair costs
for the photovoltaic system.
3


Solar
Concentrated solar is not a viable option due to the lack
of expertise and maintenance ability already established in
Rwanda (or surrounding countries). The long-term main-
tenance of this system would largely undermine any proft
made by the system. Our consultations with Antony Simm
of Stadtwerke Mainz, implementing partner of Kigali So-
laire, the largest operational Sub-Saharan photovoltaic so-
lar farm, confrmed the undesirability of implementing and
maintaining a concentrated solar power-production system
in a country like Rwanda, where the topography and climate
prohibit sustained periods of direct sunshine over the course
of an entire day. While concentrated solar systems produce
intensely under direct sunshine, they fail to deliver sustained
and effcient supplies of energy under the low or medium
cloud cover that frequents Rwanda’s skies in the way that
solar photovoltaic systems do. This factor, coupled with
the highly advanced technical skills and materials needed
to maintain concentrated solar systems in the likely even-
tual case of overheating or breakdown, tipped the scales
squarely in the direction of solar photovoltaics.

Geothermal
Geothermal energy production was determined to be cost
prohibitive due to the inability for a reasonably sized (ie:
small) system to provide adequate energy for the village. The
end-goal of the village is to be energy neutral and a geother-
mal system simply would not be able to produce enough en-
ergy to provide for all energy needs of the village. Six factors
exclude geothermal electricity production: lack of available
equipment, high resource temperature requirements, low
plant effciency, high water fow requirements, high parasitic
power requirements, and high capital cost. Only commercial
equipment (>100kW) for geothermal electricity production
exists, and the in situ resource temperature must be greater
than 220°F (104 C), while lower resource temperatures yield
lower plant effciency, which leads to high geothermal fow
rates (high water fow rates) and high power requirements
for cooling, feed and well pumps. Additionally, a geothermal
electricity plant costs roughly $1,500-3,000 per kW capacity.
Due to low in situ resource temperatures in Rwanda, geo-
thermal electricity production is not a viable production op-
tion for ASYV.
4

Wind
The Mango Tree Project Team was unable to collect suff-
cient wind data to determine whether wind electricity produc-
tion would be a feasible option for ASYV. Because this data
is inconclusive, the Mango Tree Project Team encourages
ASYV to follow closely as 3E, the European-based energy
frm, releases its pioneering report on the country's wind en-
ergy potential to the Rwandan Ministry of Infrastructure in
December 2010. A full wind data survey will adequately de-
termine wind energy production potential, and while it may
prove unfeasible for the village to obtain the bulk of its en-
ergy needs through wind power given its topographical loca-
tion, a single wind turbine located at the top of the village’s
upper-most hill, adjacent to the children’s school, would cer-
tainly serve as an invaluable source of educational material
and skills-development for the youth, if not a valuable but
modest source of energy for the school as well. This, how-
ever, may only be advisable as a secondary aspiration for
the village, given the unknowability of the economic return
such a wind turbine would provide.
2 Interview, Antony Simm, Stadwerke Mainz & Kigali Solaire, Kigali, January 2010.
3 Interview and email correspondence, Sam Dargin, Great Lakes Energy Rwanda, Kigali, January 2010.
4 Rafferty, Kevin. “GEOTHERMAL POWER GENERATION.” GeoHeat. Geo-Heat Center, Jan. 2000. Web. 8 Sept. 2010. <http://geoheat.
oit.edu/pdf/powergen.pdf>.
22
The Mango Tree Project
23
The Mango Tree Project
Biogas
Biogas was determined to be an insuffcient source of en-
ergy to provide electrical energy to the village but may con-
tribute to higher cooking effciencies, diminishing reliance on
energy from frewood, and thereby reducing the respiratory
strain on village staff of non-stop wood burning in the kitch-
en facilities.
5
ASYV is planning to acquire 40 head of cattle,
from which biogas may be produced with the construction of
relatively simple biogas digesters located near to the kitchen
space in outdoor pits. (See Figure 9 below) According to the
Biogas Production Estimates given in Appendices F & G,
40 average weight dairy cows will yield approximately 0.13
kWh electrical power production or 49.6m3 of biogas per
day in a system such as that pictured in Figure 8. Questions
for the village to consider before pursuing a biogas genera-
tion system include, What systems will be erected to collect
and consolidate all bovine waste into the biodigester, What
will be done with the treated slurry after the waste has been
digested, and Can the space required for one or multiple
biodigesters (multiple smaller digesters providing the great-
est effciency) be allocated, preferably near to the kitchen
facilities? While the fgures given in Appendices F and G
provide accurate estimates of what ASYV could expect to
produce from 40 mature cows, a guiding principle for con-
sidering a biogas system should be that “biogas is a site-
specifc operation,¨ and thus a local partner such as Manna
Energy Ltd. (a private-sector enterprise based in Kigali) or
the Kigali Institute for Science and Technology, a leader in
the feld of biogas in Rwanda, would be advisable for the
design and implementation of any biogas system.
6

IMPLEMENTATION METHODS
In addition to engineering and economic sustainability, the
Mango Tree Project team also desires socio-cultural sustain-
ability. The team is conscious of ensuring equal investment
by the community, which will augment the sustainability and
serve to educate all involved in the benefts and workings
of new designs. For this reason the team believes multiple
solutions should be presented to ASYV by the Mango Tree
Project team. From these options the village will decide what
solution best suits their needs and desires. These solutions
include a modular solar photovoltaic system for each house,
a larger system incorporating multiple (16 to 32) houses, a
system suffcient for supporting all of Phase 1 (current) con-
struction, and fnally an all-inclusive system incorporating
both Phase 1 and Phase 2 (future) construction. Addition-
ally, the MTP will facilitate the education of ASYV throughout
the entire process including: concept, design, construction,
and sustainment.
5 The following fndings derive from information provided during communications with Mazen Zoabi, former Masters student specializing in biogas at the Arava Ìnstitute for
Environmental Studies in Israel, a report by Aashish Meta titled “The Economics and Feasibility of Electricity Generation Using Manure Digesters on Small and Mid-size
Dairy Farms,” University of Wisconsin – Madison, January 2002, and calculations based on the provided information by the Mango Tree Project team. Potential respitory
sickness resulting from constant exposure to fre-wood smoke in the kitchen facilities has been identifed by the village leadership as a major concern for the Mango Tree
Project to consider.
6 Email correspondence, Mazen Zoabi, March 2010.
Figure 9 Plastic Tube Biodigester, Lowest-Cost on Market
Figure 10 Thermosyphon Design Principles
24
The Mango Tree Project
25
The Mango Tree Project
B. STRATEGIC AREAS FOR REDUCTION
& EDUCATION
Separate from independent power generation systems con-
structed by the village, there are measures that the village’s
youth and staff can consider undertaking to reduce their use
of energy on a day-to-day basis. These include infrastruc-
ture augmentation of each children’s home using solar hot
water devices as well as behavioral changes that will serve
as much as an educative process in the spirit of environ-
mental and community fnancial stewardship. The educative
opportunities presented by any action taken to reduce elec-
tricity use and, in particular, to produce renewable energy
on-site, are many and invaluable to the four problem areas
were identifed by the MTP team where reductions in energy
usage can be realized: water heating in children’s homes,
phantom loads of plugged-in appliances, external house
lighting, and dining hall lighting. Each of these areas has
been addressed below.
Water Heating
Water heating for tea and coffee (and perhaps for hot show-
ers and clothes cleaning, but these were only uses iden-
tifed by the village youth through hearsay) consumes ap-
proximately 11% of the electricity used by a single children’s
home in a given day. (See Figure 1 above) Solar hot water
is a viable technology using local materials and may serve
as simple way for family homes to invest in a sustainable
energy project and reduce their daily energy consumption.
This method requires relatively little initial cost, infrequent
maintenance, and serves as a great way to educate the
village in energy savings while reducing energy use from
in-home water heating devices. According to our technical
report conducted by US Air Force cadet Leif Lindblom, a
simple thermosyphon for each home may be constructed
using local materials and labor. (See Figure 10 and Appen-
dices H & I for diagrams and calculations) A thermosyphon
is a simple water heating device located on the roof of a
home that uses the different densities of water at different
temperatures to separate hot from cold water. Assuming
water enters an ASYV house at 16C, a thermosyphon that
increases the water source to 65C will result in a 50% de-
crease in energy consumption for heating water (i.e. for tea).
One kWh can heat 10, 1L kettles flled with 16C water to
100C while the same amount of electricity can heat 20, 1L
kettles flled with 65C water to 100C.
This method cannot provide electrical energy production but
may signifcantly reduce energy consumption related to hot-
water usage on a house-by-house and daily basis. More-
over, if it is true that the village youth and guests frequently
use the Black & Decker boilerplate for heating water for use
in showers and clothes-cleaning buckets, a large enough
water tank built into a thermosyphon system would more
than compensate for this ‘extra’ hot water demand.
26
The Mango Tree Project
27
The Mango Tree Project
Phantom Loads
Phantom loads are defned as the electricity that 'seeps' out of plugged-in appliances when they are not in use; all phantom
load electricity is completely wasted. The village currently loses an estimated 6518 watts per day due to phantom loads
– this includes desktop computers and fully-charged laptop computers plugged in over night, radios and water heaters
plugged in throughout the day, and printers, fax machines, and other large but infrequently used appliances. This costs
the village over 314,000RWF per year. Where appropriate, the recommended course of action should be the investment
in power strips that can be unplugged and/or turned off when appliances are no longer being used and the education of
youth and staff about the importance of unplugging their home appliances immediately after use. The numbers provided
in Figure 11 and the above calculation of yearly cost should provide a suffcient impetus for increased stewardship among
the youth in this area; house-by-house competitions to reduce phantom loads and general electricity consumption will only
increase their awareness and passion about this particular cause of energy waste.
Figure 11 Phantom Loads by Device and Building
28
The Mango Tree Project
29
The Mango Tree Project
External Light Fixtures
While the MTP team remains cognizant of the security mea-
sures in place in the village to protect the youth and staff after
dark, such as the use of fuorescent lights on the exteriors of
children’s homes, the dining hall and school, we have pre-
sented two options for reducing the electricity waste of out-
door lights that the village can consider and weigh against
the potential security implications of both. The homes have
8 lights turned on at all times when the sun is down until
the children go to sleep at around 10pm-12am, when the
homes diligently turn off their outside lights and retire. Some
of these lights are redundant, for example when two lights
face each other on the sides of two different homes, and
others are simply unnecessary for the purpose of illuminat-
ing ‘social space’ for the youth, as they fall on the wrong side
of the building. It is problematic that all lights are turned on
with the fip of a single switch, because the kids will normally
congregate on only one side of the home if and when they
decide to go outside at night, which is not always frequently.
The installation of either motion sensors that automatically
operate the external lights in the presence of people or mul-
tiple independent switch-to-light circuits that allow the youth
to switch on particular sections of the external lighting fx-
tures would have a tremendously benefcial effect in reduc-
ing consumption during these peak hours.
Watt Stopper and similar companies manufacturing remote
sensor light attachments offer sound products in the range
of $13-20USD and upwards of $75USD for the mounting
of motion-sensor lights.
7
Given the potential range of each
sensor, a single home may have one sensor activated for
multiple lights (or across multiple homes, for that matter).
For the outsides of the school and dining hall and security
offce, a bi-level luminaire that dims to approximately 30%
when no motion is sensed and returns to 100% when motion
is detected, and with a range of between 25’ and 50’, could
provide a safe and ideal alternative to the current lighting
system, which has all lights on at all hours of the night. Con-
sidering these middle-ground alternatives while keeping in
mind necessary security measures, the village may wish to
investigate and invest in a system of motion-sensor bi-lumi-
naire lights for the outsides of its buildings. The replacement
of the current outdoor lights with bi-luminaire motion sen-
sor lights would represent less of a loss to the village than
imagined, as all DOP 36-Watt lights taken from the outsides
of the children’s homes, dining hall, and school could serve
as eventual replacements for the internal lights in the dining
hall and school.
http://www.wattstopper.com/products/details.html?id=39&category=63&type=Commercial
and http://www.wattstopper.com/products/details.html?id=108&category=64&type=Commercial (Accessed July 2010) In America, Home Depot offers a sound range of items in
the $13-20USD range. We have no fgures for motion sensors that might be available in Rwanda.
30
The Mango Tree Project
31
The Mango Tree Project
Dining Hall Internal Light Fixtures
Finally, inside the dining hall are over 100 36-Watt lights that
illuminate the interior as the youth take their dinner and that
remain on well after most have left for their homes after night-
fall. Because the walls of the dining hall are painted white,
and thus highly refective, we recommend that the village
undertakes an experimental period of two weeks whereby a
full half of the main hall’s ceiling lights are disconnected and
kept out of use, in order to evaluate the suffciency of the
half that remain in use after dark and take appropriate steps
given the feedback of the youth and kitchen staff. Given that
the light fxtures consume roughly 58% of the dining hall's
overall consumption of 58KWh/day (7650RWF/day), the vil-
lage might expect to realize a daily cost savings of approxi-
mately 3800RWF/day during this experiment.
The educative value of steps – both tangible and behavioral
– taken to reduce the energy consumption of each home
will leave impacts far beyond the village's fnancial bottom
line. The MTP team observed an extraordinarily high sense
of stewardship and commitment to the village’s collective
well-being among the students during its assessment trip in
January 2010. This, with little surprise, extended to the task
of turning off all home lights at bed time, which was a topic
of conversation during an all-village meeting during our as-
sessment trip.
With self-initiated and competitive initiatives to reduce daily
energy consumption, which can and should be devised by
the students as much as possible, the vil lage as a whole
would realize equal parts cost savings and education ex-
periences worthy of its investment. Strategic investments in
this area might include energy-use monitoring systems for
each home that can display data in live time and feed data
to the ASYV website which all youth and staff can see, and
monitoring systems for solar photovoltaic power generation
systems such as the WEB Log device offered by the Ger-
man company Meteo Control, which are used by the Kigali
Solaire solar-panel farm to aggregate and show data on the
farm’s electricity production.
Creating educational curricula around the renewable power
generation systems and energy saving systems (such as
the photovoltaic solar farm and thermosyphon systems) will
be crucial to generating life-long passions for sustainability
and familiarity with renewable technologies. Next to a pho-
tovoltaic solar farm could be a wooden billboard display with
LED indicators of the level of electricity being produced by
the panels and the amount of electricity being drawn from
the grid, if any. Such an LED display would contextualize
the overall contribution of the solar panels to the village’s
energy supply, and further incentivize the youth and staff to
reduce their electricity use in the hours when the village is
consistently relying on the grid as a supplement to its pho-
tovoltaic array. This wooden billboard would also contain a
static informational display about the inner-workings of solar
photovoltaic energy systems.
Figure 13 WEB Log Metering Device at Kigali Solaire
32
The Mango Tree Project
33
The Mango Tree Project
VII. CONCLUSIONS
The recommendations contained within this report stem from the village's stated desire to reduce the fnancial burden
of its energy use and from the data collected during the Mango Tree Project team’s energy audit conducted in Janu-
ary 2010. We have considered the most relevant renewable energy technologies for power generation in the village,
informing our analysis with insights gained through interviews and consultations with four leaders in Rwanda’s renew-
able energy feld ÷ Kigali Solaire, Great Lakes Energy Ltd., the Solar Electric Light Fund (SELF), and the Kigali Ìnstitute
for Science and Technology (KIST), whose collective knowledge draws upon private sector experience (Great Lakes),
non-proft work in partnership with communities (SELF), municipal-scale generation (Kigali Solaire), and ground-break-
ing research (KIST). Our conclusion is that a solar photovoltaic array situated on the face of the village’s hill above its
dining hall will be the smartest option for generating power and reducing dependency on the unreliable and uneco-
nomical national grid. Most importantly, the local capacity for quoting, building, and maintaining such a solar array is in
abundant supply given the presence of the above four organizations and institutes.
Finally, we have recommended various strategic measures the village can take to reduce its energy consumption
and cultivate environmental and fnancial stewardship while doing so. These include adopting solar water heaters on
the children’s homes and bi-luminaire motion-sensor lights on the exteriors of the village buildings, in addition to an
experimental removal of 50% of the interior dining hall lights. In order to familiarize the village youth and staff with all
renewable technologies, concepts, and systems implemented by the village in its pursuit of energy savings, we have
offered our ideas for the education of all community members whose physical living space will be altered by the above
recommendations and whose understandings of the social, habitual, and cultural factors that impact their community’s
energy use will be of paramount importance to the village's fnancial sustainability.
APPENDICES
34
The Mango Tree Project
35
The Mango Tree Project
Appendix A Hourly Electricity Usage by Building
Appendix A Hourly Electricity Usage by Building
36
The Mango Tree Project
37
The Mango Tree Project
Appendix A Hourly Electricity Usage by Building
APPENDIX B Phase 1 Assumptions
38
The Mango Tree Project
39
The Mango Tree Project

Appendix D Energy Use by Appliance
APPENDIX C Phase 2 Assumptions
40
The Mango Tree Project
41
The Mango Tree Project
Appendix E Experimental Data Phase 1 & 2

Appendix D Energy Use by Appliance
42
The Mango Tree Project
43
The Mango Tree Project
Biogas Production

Sorted by Biogas/kg animal



Animal


Type Duck Broiler Layer Pig Turkey Horse Sheep Beef Dairy Veal
Weight per animal

3 2 2 70 8 400 60 500 500 40 kg

Manure






Total 0.33 0.19 0.13 5.88 0.38 20.40 2.40 29.00 43.00 2.48 kg (per day)
TS 0.09 0.05 0.03 0.77 0.10 6.00 0.66 4.25 6.00 0.21 kg (per day)
VS 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.60 0.07 4.00 0.55 3.60 5.00 0.09 kg (per day)
Total Manure /kg animal

0.110 0.085 0.064 0.084 0.047 0.051 0.040 0.058 0.086 0.062 kg/kg animal (per day)

Output







T.Biogas 0.0267 0.0167 0.0110 0.3338 0.0330 1.62 0.1975 1.56 1.24 0.0230 m
3
per day
T.Power 0.0072 0.0045 0.0030 0.0904 0.0089 0.44 0.0535 0.42 0.34 0.0062 kW
Biogas/kg manure 81.04 89.43 86.09 56.77 87.86 79.44 82.28 53.91 28.91 9.29 l/kg manure (per day)
Power/kg manure 21.95 24.22 23.32 15.38 23.80 21.51 22.28 14.60 7.83 2.52 W/kg manure (per day)
Biogas/kg animal 8.91 7.60 5.51 4.77 4.13 4.05 3.29 3.13 2.49 0.58 l/kg animal (per day)
Power/kg animal

2.41

2.06

1.49

1.29

1.12

1.10

0.89

0.85

0.67

0.16

W/kg animal (per day)

Biogas Equivalents (Numbers of animals "down" equal to one animal "across". Eg. 12.5 ducks = 1 pig)






Duck 1.00 0.63 0.41 12.48 1.24 60.59 7.38 58.46 46.49 0.86 Number of Animals









Broiler 1.60 1.00 0.66 19.96 1.98 96.90 11.81 93.49 74.35 1.38 Number of Animals
Layer

2.43 1.52 1.00 30.30 3.00 147.06 17.92 141.89 112.83 2.09 Number of Animals
Pig 0.08 0.05 0.03 1.00 0.10 4.85 0.59 4.68 3.72 0.07 Number of Animals
Turkey 0.81 0.51 0.33 10.10 1.00 49.05 5.98 47.33 37.63 0.70 Number of Animals
Horse 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.02 1.00 0.12 0.96 0.77 0.01 Number of Animals
Sheep 0.14 0.08 0.06 1.69 0.17 8.21 1.00 7.92 6.30 0.12 Number of Animals
Beef 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.02 1.04 0.13 1.00 0.80 0.01 Number of Animals
Dairy 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.03 1.30 0.16 1.26 1.00 0.02 Number of Animals
Veal 1.16 0.73 0.48 14.49 1.43 70.34 8.57 67.87 53.97 1.00 Number of Animals

Appendix F Biogas Production Chart
Appendix G Biogas Production Calculations
44
The Mango Tree Project
45
The Mango Tree Project
Appendix H Thermosyphon Analysis
Appendix H Thermosyphon Analysis
46
The Mango Tree Project
47
The Mango Tree Project
Appendix I Total System Load by Appliance Full Village
Appendix Ì Total System Load by Appliance School and Offce

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful