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

net/publication/350440425

Experimental studies on the contribution of solar energy as a source for

heating biogas digestion units

Article  in  Energy Reports · November 2021

DOI: 10.1016/j.egyr.2021.03.014

CITATIONS READS

8 115

2 authors, including:

Mohamed Darwish
Tanta University
32 PUBLICATIONS   59 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

MANUFACTURE AND PERFORMANCE TESTING OF A HOT AIR HEATING SYSTEM SUITABLE FOR BROILER BARNS. View project

Applications of electrical and electronic engineering in agriculture View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohamed Saied Ghoname on 05 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Energy Reports 7 (2021) 1657–1671

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

Experimental studies on the contribution of solar energy as a source for

heating biogas digestion units
∗
M.R. Darwesh, Prof Dr, M.S. Ghoname, Assistant prof
Agricultural Engineering Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Tanta University, Egypt

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: The main drawback of heating biogas digestion systems based on solar energy is its unavailability
Received 29 September 2020 overnight and at different times (days and months). To circumvent this problem, a hybrid system(solar
Received in revised form 2 March 2021 and electricity) powering the heat digester could provide the required mesophilic conditions. The
Accepted 14 March 2021
present study aimed to evaluate the technical and design feasibility of using solar energy to assist
Available online xxxx
in heating the digestion units. Also, measured and determined the contribution of solar energy to heat
Keywords: the system. This study was conducted in the central area of Coastal Delta, Egypt (30.5◦ N, 30.6◦ E; 8.5
Auxiliary electrical heater m a.s.l.). Results show that the contribution of solar energy to biogas production was 75.21%, 60%,
Biogas and 53.58% when using three settings temperature of (37, 40, and 45 ◦ C) of the energy consumed via
Control system cattle dung solution heating. Furthermore, increasing the set temperature inside the horizontal and
Solar energy
vertical digesters from 37 ◦ C to 45 ◦ C augmented their daily average volumetric biogas production by
87.12% and 59.45%, respectively. Finally, the current study says that solar energy has reduced energy
consumption by 61.28%. Also, the economic analysis indicates that the estimated return profit was $
177.41 (USD), which represents 45.15% of the total income per operation.
© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction biogas as renewable energy; they found that 100 g of remains

Energy consumption is increasing globally as a result of over-
population and rapid technological development. Consequently,
this depletion of energy causes inflation and energy shortages.
Conventional energy sources such as fossil fuels have become lim-
ited and represent sources of pollution, whereas unconventional
forms of energy, namely renewable energy, had many advantages
in now being relatively cheap and abundant, while also clean,
safe, and environmentally compatible. A biogas production plant
is defined as technology-dependent upon microorganisms that
convert fermentable organic matter in a digester (Khoiyangbam
et al., 2011), while (Razaviarani and Buchanan, 2015) considers
anaerobic digestion (AD) as the engineered anaerobic decompo-
sition of organic matter. It works in the absence of air, to finally
yield methane, carbon dioxide, and water as by-products. Using
a biogas digestion process is simple and has relatively low costs,
so it could be economically carried out in rural areas (Starr et al.,
2014). Therefore, the technology for biogas production by anaer-
obic fermentation of organic materials, which are nonpolluting,
low-cost, and renewable, is now readily available (Morales-Polo
et al., 2019) investigates the superfluity materials in fruit and veg-
etable wastes and their potential for processing by AD to produce
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Mohamed.darwish@agr.tanta.edu.eg (M.R. Darwesh),
mohamed.ghonaim@agr.tanta.edu.eg (M.S. Ghoname).
vegetables made 913.282 NmL of biogas, of which 289.333 NmL
was methane, with a disintegration constant of 0.200 day−1 , for
16.045% of the substrate degraded. Dioha et al. (2013) stated
that, the yield of biogas depends upon many parameters, such
as the C/N ratio of the substrate concentration and pH, as well
as temperature. The appropriate C/N ratio for anaerobic digestion
is between 20 and 35 (Abbasi et al., 2011); further, using a
sufficiently high water content (i.e., 70% to 90%) and the buffering
capacity of manure has a positive impact on the stability of
anaerobic digestion (Rico et al., 2014). Weil (2010) illustrated
that the two types of bacteria capable of producing biogas based
on their temperature ranges. The first type is mesophilic bacte-
ria, mesophilic bacteria have an optimal temperature for growth
between 30–40 ◦ C and consequently mesophilic digesters are
usually operated at temperatures around 35 ◦ C. The efficient
operation needs to control temperature since reaction rates drop
off considerably as the temperature falls below 35 ◦ C and there
is also a sharp drop off in activity at temperatures above 45 ◦ C,
as mesophilic bacteria become inhibited by the heat.
Mesophilic digestion systems are generally more stable than
thermophilic systems since a wider diversity of bacteria grows at
mesophilic temperatures and these bacteria are generally more
robust and adaptable to changing environmental conditions, mak-
ing them suitable for use under winter conditions. In comparison,
the second type is thermophilic bacteria that thrive at 45 ◦ C to
60 ◦ C and are thus better suited to summer conditions. These

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.03.014
2352-4847/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
M.R. Darwesh and M.S. Ghoname Energy Reports 7 (2021) 1657–1671

Nomenclature Subscripts
2
A Total surface area for digester (m ) hi Internal convection heat transfer coeffi-
Ac Collector surface area (m2 ) cient for digester (kW/m2 ◦ C)
Cp The specific heat of water (kJ/kg/◦ C) ho Outer convection heat transfer coeffi-
Emethane Methane biogas heat energy (kWh) cient for digester (kW/m2 ◦ C)
HV Heating value (28 MJ/m3 ) ηa Absorption efficiency (%)
I Solar radiation flux incident on the ηh Heat transfer efficiency (%)
collector surface (W/m2 ) ηo Overall thermal efficiency (%)
I2 R Electrical power in (Watt) ηs Storage system efficiency (%)
i Discount rate (8.75 % according Egyp- ηcomp. Combustion efficiency (dimensionless)
trion central Bank)
Greek symbols
k1 Thermal conductivity of digester mate-
rial in (kW m−1 C−1 ) βo Tilt angle (degree)
k2 Thermal conductivity of insulation ma- Φ Latitude angle (degree)
terial in (kW m−1 C−1 ) δ Declination angle (degree)
Ms Mass of fluid in the storage tank (kg) τ Transmittance coefficient and its value is
m Water mass flow rate inside the collec- 0.91
tor (kg/s) α Absorbance coefficient and its value is
Q Available solar energy (kWh) 0.90
Qa The absorbed solar energy (kWh) ∆X1 Thickness of digester wall in (m)
Qc Useful heat gain to storage (kWh) ∆X2 Thickness of insulation material in (m)
QL Heat losses from the solar collector to
surrounding (kWh)
QLoss-digs Losses from the total surface area of the
digester (kWh) ranges respectively improve the growth, productivity, and activ-
Qce Electrical useful heat energy added to ity of the two types of methane bacteria. Mesophilic conditions
collector storage tank (kWh) (30 ◦ C–40 ◦ C) have been generally adopted for the anaerobic
digestion of agricultural organic wastes and show good perfor-
Qs1 Solar energy stored every hour (kWh)
mance in biogas production (Cho et al., 2013).
Qg Amount of biogas production (L/day)
Pandey et al. (2010) indicated that biogas produced by such
Qtot Useful heat gains from electricity and environmentally-friendly methods be used as fuel for heating and
solar energy added to the storage tank cooking – besides simply generating biogas for energy use – and
(kWh/day). the involved anaerobic process also reduces the amount of solid
Qloss tank Storage tank heat losses (kWh/day). waste. But solar energy is not always available when it is needed;
Qloss-hor.dig Heat losses from horizontal digester therefore the hybrid system may provide the best performance
(kWh/day). from the viewpoint of net savings of energy. The coupling of solar
Qloss-ver.dig Heat losses from horizontal digester energy systems and biogas generation is termed a hybrid system,
(kWh/day). whose solar output is stored in a water tank, to then operate
Rm Concentration of methane gas in the the digester that produces the biogas. The hybrid system can be
percentage of biogas, (kWh) employed using paired components, for example, solar energy
rcr Critical thickness for insulation mate- with electricity. To indicate the gap between some literature and
rial, (m) this present study, the following presentation showed various
studies in this field. Several investigators have suggested that
r1 Internal radius for digester, (m)
solar energy could be combined to heat biogas digester unite
Ti Inlet water temperature to the collector
throughout the winter season (Al Khamis et al., 2000; El-Mashad
(◦ C)
et al., 2004; Kocar and Eryasar, 2007; Chen and Qin, 2014; Ali,
To Outlet water temperature from the 2015; Maji, 2015). Feng et al. (2016a) used thermostatic system
collector (◦ C) for heating biogas digester unite and indicated only the biogas
Tk2 Mean storage tank temperature at end production, they were able to clarify the consumed heat, but
of each hour (◦ C) they do not determine the contribution of solar energy to the
Tk1 Mean storage tank temperature at the production process.
beginning of each hour (◦ C) By employing the greenhouse effect as a heater of the di-
Td Internal digester temperature (◦ C) gesters, Su et al. (2017) obtained a thermal tripling resulting in
Ta Ambient temperature (◦ C) enough solar radiation for a suitable fermentation temperature,
TS1 Initial temperature of water in the tank for which they developed a model to compute the fermentation
(◦ C) process under their conditions; though they did not use a solar
TS2 Final temperature for water in the tank collector for this heating process. In another study, Guo et al.
(◦ C) (2019) focused on the types of insulation materials for heating
and their costs for biogas production and heat transfer perfor-
Vbiogas Quantity of biogas (m3 /d)
mance. Solar energy is the basic source of biogas production
resulting in the photosynthesis process, and biogas production
represents green energy (Oslaj and Mursec, 2010). Complex bio-
gas production and utilization system was created by Meggyes
(2012), by developing experimental biogas variants, and such so
1658
M.R. Darwesh and M.S. Ghoname
that both the energy and environmental goals could be achieved
together at once since the applied variants can provide favorable
conditions for the production and the utilization of biogas; those
investigators studied the quantity and quality of input materials
without pointing out the heating method used. In other work, Lu
et al. (2015) developed a mathematical model to determine the
heat demand of the digester system located in Anhui Province,
in Central China. Their model considers the heat loss from the
digester, and the loss through the pipe connecting the digester
to the heat storage tank; the size of the solar collector panel
surface area, and the storage tank’s volume were estimated; the
required insulation material and thickness were also determined.
It was found that when the solar fraction is 0.8, a 20-m2 solar
collector area and 3-m3 heat storage volume could attain the
mesophilic slurry temperature in winter. Their determination
of the suitable insulation material and thickness suggests the
use of 200-mm polyurethane is ideal for the digester system.
However, a limitation to that study was the assumption of a
5 ◦ C ambient temperature during winter. A solar collector heating
pipe system was developed by Ubwa et al. (2013), to assess its
impact on the anaerobic digestion of cow manure in winter; the
thermal model developed considers the heat gained from the
solar collecting pipe, the losses from the wall, floor, and cover of
the fermentation tank, and the heat exchanger. That model was
then validated with an experiment using the modeled conditions,
for which the methane yield was measured, and the methane
and carbon dioxide content, digester temperature, and hot water
temperature were recorded. The study found that the system was
able to maintain a mesophilic temperature while achieving stable
methane production, in which the slurry temperature increased
by 5 ◦ C on sunny days and decreased to 0.6 ◦ C at night; yet, during
the day, no heat was lost from the digester since it is was sur-
rounded by a heat collection system, while at night the digester
did lose heat. Kassem and Fouda (2016) used anaerobic digestion
to produce biogas by varying the natural heating load, whereas
conventional methods were used by Matos et al. (2017) without
relying on any heating system for the biogas production. Many
of the microorganism’s problems were solved by Sankina et al.
(2017), but in their study, they did not consider the fermentation
temperature nor the energy consumed. The quantity of electric-
ity consumed In producing biogas was presented by Akyurek
(2018) without presented the quantity of energy that is used to
produce biogas during the fermentation process. Moreover, the
long-term performance of biogas systems is highly influenced by
the continuous supply of digester feedstock and the quality of the
digester substrate (Tumusiime et al., 2019a). Feng et al. (2016b)
used a thermostatic heating system (solar energy combined with
electricity) for heating biogas digestion units, and they focused on
clarified biogas production. They did not take into consideration
the contribution of solar energy to produce biogas.
Lu et al. (2015) developed a mathematical model to determine
the heat demand of the digester system located in Anhui Province
in Central China. Their model considers the heat loss from the
digester and the loss through the pipe connecting the digester
to the heat storage tank; the size of the solar collector panel
surface area and the storage tank’s volume were estimated; the
required insulation material and thickness were also determined.
It was found that when the solar fraction is 0.8, a 20-m2 solar
collector area and 3-m3 heat storage volume could attain the
mesophilic slurry temperature in winter. Their determination
of the suitable insulation material and thickness suggests the
use of a 200-mm polyurethane is ideal for the digester system.
However, a limitation to that study was the assumption of a
5 ◦ C ambient temperature during winter. Ubwa et al. (2013)
developed a solar collector heating pipe system to assess its
impact on the anaerobic digestion of cow manure in winter;
1659
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 1657–1671
the thermal model developed considers the heat gained from
the solar collecting pipe, the losses from the wall, floor, and
cover of the fermentation tank, and the heat exchanger. That
model was then validated with an experiment using the modeled
conditions. The methane yield was measured, and the methane
and carbon dioxide content, digester temperature, and hot water
temperature were recorded. The study found that the system was
able to maintain a mesophilic temperature while achieving stable
methane production, in which the slurry temperature increased
by 5 ◦ C on sunny days and decreased to 0.6 ◦ C at night; yet,
during the day, no heat was lost from the digester since it is
was surrounded by a heat collection system, while at night the
digester did lose heat. Kassem and Fouda (2016) used anaerobic
digestion to produce biogas by varying the natural heating load,
whereas (Matos et al., 2017) used conventional methods without
relying on any heating system for biogas production. Moreover,
the long-term performance of biogas systems is highly influenced
by the continuous supply of digester feedstock and the quality of
the digester substrate (Tumusiime et al., 2019b).
From the above studies, it appears that researchers have
adopted various approaches to analyzing the goal of their studies.
Some of them compared the production of biogas using solar-
heated versus non-solar heated systems. Others showed how the
digester temperature could be adjusted to desirable temperatures
by using control systems. Some researchers also constructed
models to predict the time needed to produce biogas while
other models sought to estimate the heating losses during biogas
production. Also, the overall aim of some other papers was how
to use the biogas produced from wastes without considering the
heating source of reactors, while in others, the engineering and
environmental parameters (temperature, pressure, solar radia-
tion) to increase biogas production were investigated. Fouda et al.
(2016) evaluated the thermal performance of an evacuated tube
type of solar collector at a location whose latitude and longitudes
were 30.49◦ N and 30.59◦ E, respectively. The mean daily average
total solar radiation flux incident on the tilted surfaces was
5.604 kWh/m2 over the winter months when the highest value
of solar radiation observed at noon was 1247 W/m2 . Darwesh
and Ghoname (2019) found that the measured solar radiation
upon the tilt angle of 30.5◦ ranged between 837.87 and 1065.56
W/m2. The mean values of useful heat gain in the winter months
varied from 6.54 to 8.82 kWh. Various investigations have char-
acterized the overall performance of water-in-glass evacuated
tube collectors, finding them to have an overall efficiency of
50%–60% (Ayompe et al., 2011; Gill et al., 2016).
Sufficient energy is essential for completing the AD process in
a short time and obtaining a high quality of methane produced at
optimal energy requirements. Many researchers are trying to find
ways to supply these necessary energy requirements at a min-
imum cost. Several factors can affect the digestion process. The
digester operating temperature, pH, organic loading rates, and
substrate concentration can affect the effectiveness of AD because
they can directly affect the dynamics of microbial populations.
According to (Mao et al., 2013), temperature is the extremely
critical parameter influencing biogas production, hence its use
in many biogas production kinetic models. In the AD process,
the temperature can set the rate of microbial intracellular en-
zyme activity, thereby modulating the metabolic effectiveness
of microorganisms and the anaerobic fermentation efficiency. As
described above, many researchers have employed solar energy
systems to heat biogas digesters during winter for providing the
optimum mesophilic conditions, which requires exploring many
engineering and environmental parameters in combination. Ali
(2015) reported that the payback period is 3.2 years, the net
present value in the economic analysis was 3,533$ and the fi-
nancial analysis of the biogas plant showed great potential for
M.R. Darwesh and M.S. Ghoname
making the capital investment. Also, the biogas system proved
to be economically feasible for the farmers to save money by
providing them with another source of energy to heat their farm
and biofertilizers to use for agricultural purposes. Economic cal-
culations by Huber (2019) indicated that low investment costs
for the proposed facility as well as acceptable annual revenues in
case the liquid digestive proved to be of interest for economical
acquisition by a local farmer. Therefore, the information about
these parameters biogas is readily available. Yet, there are no such
details on the percentage contribution from solar energy in hybrid
systems for any hybrid system anywhere.
The biogas generation technique is not a new method of
energy generation, but its production efficiency is questionable.
The indicators of efficiency as the thermal performance of solar-
assisted with a biogas plant, digester efficiency, quantity of bio-
gas produced by integration systems, and measure the contribu-
tion of each heating source to produce biogas. These parameters
determine the reliability of the system as a complete circle.
Thus, the main goal of this study was to calculate the con-
tribution of solar energy to producing biogas in an investigated
hybrid system. Our specific objectives were to (i) evaluate the
thermal performance of the solar energy system, (ii) evaluate the
behavior of the digester over 24 h, and determine the operating
time for the solar energy system versus electrical heaters, and
(iii) calculate the energy consumption when using either heating
method.
2. Material and methods
The experimental work was carried out at the Faculty of Agri-
culture, Tanta University, in the Gharbyia Governorate of Egypt
(Φ is 30.49◦ N, 30.59◦ E), from November 2017 to February 2018.
2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Evacuated tube solar collector (ETSC)
An evacuated tube solar collector functioned to provide the
two digesters with hot water through two pipe connections at-
tached to a heat exchanger inside both digesters. The evacuated
tube used in this study consisted of 20 evacuated tubes, made
of borosilicate glass and each 180-cm long with a net surface
area of 1.5 m2 (Ac ); these were used to provide hot water to a
150-L horizontal storage tank (Ms ). An auxiliary electrical heater
(1.5 kWh) was placed inside the storage tank, in which the
hot water gained would accumulate. The evacuated tube solar
collector was mounted on a movable steel frame, whose tilt angle
could be adjusted to 46.23◦ , as shown in Fig. 1. Each tube of
the evacuated solar collector contained 2.6 L of water. The inner
tube contains the water to be heated. Its exterior surface was
coated with a suitably dark absorbing material (nitrite aluminum)
to harness the maximum possible incident solar radiation, which
is then converted into heat and transferred to the working fluid
(i.e., water). The technical specifications of evacuated tubes solar
collector are listed as follows; optical efficiency is 81.9 5,α is 0.90,
τ is 0.91, a is 1.7 W/m2 /K, and b is 0.008 W/m2 /K.
2.1.2. Digester
Two small cylindrical digesters (A, vertical, and B, horizontal)
were used in this experiment. Both digesters were constructed
at local workshops from a stainless steel sheet, and each was
1.5 mm in thickness (∆x1 ), 80 cm in length, and 20 cm in radius
(r1 ), with a total volume of 100 L and a PVC inlet and outlet
tube (7.62 cm diameter) for feeding organic wastes and ejecting
the digester materials. The digesters’ walls and bottom were
insulated by 1-cm thick (∆x2 ) polyurethane which was calculated
using Eqs. (14) and (15). Each digester had a rotating shaft made
1660
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 1657–1671
from stainless steel, which was supported by two bearings and
operated by a small electric motor (mixer) of 250 W per digester,
which was adjusted automatically at 15 min every four h. The
heating required for the bioreactor was generated using a solar
collector combined with an electrical heater to heat the water
inside the heat exchanger tubes. The heat exchanger was made of
copper piping, 12.5 mm in diameter and 2 m long, to enhance the
heat transfer rate into the cattle slurry inside the biogas digester.
This copper tube was wounded in five turns. The heat exchanger
was placed inside the biogas digester, which had an orifice for
releasing the produced gas to make the pH and temperature
measurements.
2.1.3. Circulation pump
A 1-hp (0.746 kW) circulation pump was used to move the
working fluid (m) between the collector and the two digesters.
2.1.4. Animal waste
To feed the digesters, cattle dung obtained from the dairy
farms were used as a source. The cattle dung fluid was prepared
by pouring fresh raw cattle dung into a separate 100-L container,
and manure (60 kg) and 20 L of water were added to obtain the
slurry. This cattle dung was chemically analyzed, and its proper-
ties are listed as follows. The total volume of diluted cattle dung
fed into the biogas digester was 0.10 m3 . The chemical analysis of
cattle dung was as follows the Total solids were 12.10%, Volatile
solids were 77.30%, Total nitrogen was 1.16, Organic carbon was
36.10, C/N ratio was 31.4, and pH value was 6.6 –7.25.
2.1.5. Instrumentation
a-Data loggers
Ten MT-512 E Log (Full Gauge Brazilian Company) tempera-
ture controller and an indicator is equipped with one powerful
2HP relay and RS485 serial communication port for Sitrad real-
time monitoring and management Product conforming to UL Inc.
(the United States and Canada) and NSF (United States). Each MT-
512 E Log indicator is connected with a sensor for measuring
temperature. The kind of sensor was used to measure the temper-
atures by the data loggers is the SB59 Temperature sensor and it
is a 10k Ohm NTC temperature sensor with a range from −50 ◦ C
to 200 ◦ C.
The MT-512 E Log temperature controller and indicator with
a temperature resolution were used for reading and collecting
temperature data; each was affixed with a cyclical timer at differ-
ent positions in the solar collector and two digesters and a serial
output for communication with the SITRAD program. SITRAD is a
Full Gauge Controls software for the LOCAL module, which must
be installed on the computer to which the controllers are con-
nected through a serial converter (32 channels). In other words,
it must be installed close to the controllers. The sheet reader
shows the number of sensors and the temperature value which
matches with. A 5 min interval for data recording was set with
data acquisition every one minute for integrated measurements.
b-Solar power meter
A solar power meter (Model TENMARS.TM-207, TAIWAN) was
used to measure solar radiation incident (I) over the solar collec-
tor surface (Ac ) at the experimental site. This solar power meter
can measure values up to a 1999 W/m2 , at a resolution of 1 W/m2 ,
and has accuracy typically within ± 10 W/m2 or ± 5%, with
an additional temperature-induced error of ± 0.38 W/m2 . Solar
radiation was used in calculations from Eq. (4) to Eq. (5).
c-pH meter
A liquid pH meter (AD-8000, Germany) with arrange of −2 to
16 pH and 0.01 pH resolution was used for measuring the pH (the
concentration of hydrogen ions) of cattle waste in the digesters.
M.R. Darwesh and M.S. Ghoname
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the biogas digester system.
2.2. Methods
Fig. 1 shows the horizontal and vertical digesters used in
this experiment to produce biogas from farm animal waste. This
digestion system relies on batch anaerobic fermentation, using
electric and solar energy to heat the animal waste used in the fer-
mentation process to the mesophilic conditions required, namely
30 ◦ C to 45 ◦ C according to many researchers.
The needed mesophilic conditions cannot be provided in win-
ter because the ambient air temperature (Ta ) during this season
ranges from 5 ◦ C to 20◦ going from night to day. Therefore, the
heating required to ensure the waste is digested was provided by
the solar collector combined with an electrical heater installed in
the 150-L solar storage tank; the latter provided hot water at the
desired level for different applications when the intensity of solar
radiation (I) was insufficient to provide that level of heat and was
operational when the temperatures dropped at night.
The system used to produce biogas was illustrated in Fig. 1
and consists of the evacuated solar collector, horizontal (B) and
1661
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 1657–1671
vertical digester (A), as well as a unit to control the system,
which consists of two MT-512 E Log (Full Gauge Brazilian Com-
pany) temperature controller and an indicator, is equipped with
one powerful 2HP relay and RS485 serial communication port
for Sitrad real-time monitoring and management Product con-
forming to UL Inc, The first controller was used to control the
temperature of the water entering the digesters at least from the
preset temperatures (37, 40 and 45 ◦ C). The controller sensor was
placed in the pathway of hot water inside the two digesters, as
shown in Fig. 2. A controller thermostat was used to switch the
water pump on and off automatically according to the temper-
ature of hot water where it enters both digesters; it is adjusted
to when the temperature of the mainline entrance of water to
both digesters is lower than the pre-set treatment temperatures
(i.e., 37 ◦ C, 41 ◦ C, or 45 ◦ C), and, conversely, switched off once
the water temperature has reached the selected value.
The second controller had a sensor placed in the solar collector
storage tank and its function was to control the temperature
of the water inside the collector tank so that if the internal
M.R. Darwesh and M.S. Ghoname Energy Reports 7 (2021) 1657–1671

temperature of the tank reaches 40 ◦ C, it turns on the electric

heater to heat the water until it reached up to 75 ◦ C, and that
was if the solar radiation during the day was insufficient to
heat the water, or if it was low outdoor temperature mostly at
night, three electric contactors, two electric motors (mixer) of 250
W per digester, timer multi-range (SZR-M2 ) to control the time
of stirring the dung inside the digester (15 min stirring every
4 h resting), a group of external electrical switches, electrical
protection devices and a 1-hp (0.746 kW) circulation pump to
draw hot water and connect it to the digesters to heat the dung.
The cycle begins when the temperature controller which con-
trol the water temperature entering the digesters at a preset
temperature (37, 40, and 45 ◦ C) operated the pump that draws
water from the solar collector storage tank and delivers it to the
digesters to provide the preset temperature (37, 40, and 45 ◦ C).
If the water temperature inside the collector tank was higher
than 40 ◦ C, and at the same time, the timer which operated
the stirring to mix the dung inside both digesters working (15
min stirring and 4 h resting) and the electrical heater inside the Fig. 2. Positions of temperature controller sensors.
collector tank were turned off. This was in the case of hot water
stored (solar stored) in the tank and draw hot water for heating
Hydrogen concentration ion (pH)
the digesters (solar operating).
The pH was directly measured in every liquid sample by a
If the temperature of the water inside the solar collector tank
glass electrode pH meter.
dropped below 40 ◦ C, this happened in the case of little or no
solar radiation, or low outdoor temperatures, and as the reason Daily biogas production (Vbiogas )
water withdrawing from the storage tank to heat the dung inside During batch fermentation, the volume of gas released was
the digesters. measured in liters per day (Vbiogas ) in the laboratory, by applying
In this case, the second controller which operated the electri- the wet displacement method (previously standardized).
cal heater inside the collector storage tank gave a signal to the
first controller which was responsible for the pump operating to 2.2.2. Calculations
it switch off if it was switch on as well as the timer of the two Organic matter (OM) and organic carbon (OC)
stirrings stopped working and here the water heated inside the The percentage of organic matter was estimated from the
collector tank starts relying on electricity only until the water percentage of ash (550 ◦ C–600 ◦ C), using these Eqs. (1) and (2).
temperature inside the tank reaches 75 ◦ C. Then the electrical
heater was stopped working (electrical storage), so the pump Organic matter (%) = 100 (%) − ash(%) (1)
could work and withdraw the water from the tank (electrical Organic carbon (%) = Organic matter (%)/1.8 (2)
operating) if the inlet temperature of the digesters is less than the
preset temperature (37, 40, and 45 ◦ C) and the timer returned the Thermal analysis of the solar system
stirrings to work according to the set stirring time (15 min stirring The solar collector tilt angle (βo ) was selected based on the
on and 4 h rest). This is in the case of electrical storage and the average of tilted angles for the winter months. The average of the
use of hot water to heat the digesters (electrical operation). optimum tilts angles for the winter months was selected at noon.
This value of tilt angles was obtained using Eq. (3), for each winter
2.2.1. Measurements month at the same site of the present study, the average values
The temperature was measured every 5 min interval in the were used. The previous optimum tilt angles were calculated for
solar collector and its storage tank and both digesters. For the the stationary non-tracking solar collector by using the following
solar collector, three sensors were used to measure its tem- Eq. (3) (Duffie and Beckman, 2005).
perature at certain specific places (i.e., storage tank, Inlet water
βo = Φ − δ, degree (3)
temperature to the collector (Ti), and outlet water temperature
from the collector to both digesters (To )). Likewise, for both The angle of inclination of the solar collector was calculated,
digesters, the temperatures were measured at different places on according to its row, Eq. (3) and its characteristic for November
them using three sensors for each digester (i.e., Internal digester is 49.85◦ , December is 53.5◦ , January is 51.40◦ , February is 43.50◦
temperature (Td ), hot water inlet from collector to the digester, and for March is 32.90◦ , and the mean of this values was taken
and cold water outlet from the digester to collector). There was as the collector inclination angle which was 46.23◦ .
another sensor used to measure the ambient air temperature The equations below describe the thermal performance anal-
(Ta ) and the previous measurements were used in calculations in ysis of each evacuated collector tube, according to (Duffie and
Section 2.2.2. Beckman, 2005).
Solar radiation (I) Solar energy available (Q)
Solar radiation (I) flux incident on the solar collector surface The solar energy functional can be computed using Eq. (4)
(Ac ) was measured with a solar power meter at the tilt angle (βo )
Q = IAc /1000 (4)
of 46.23◦ . That angle was selected based on an average of the
optimum tilt angles at noon during the winter months (Darwesh,
Absorbed solar energy (Qa )
2015) using Eq. (3). Solar radiation measurements were used in
The actual amount of absorbed solar energy can be determined
Eqs. (4) and (5) to calculate both solar energy available (Q) and
using Eq. (5).
absorbed solar energy (Qa ) and from them, it could be calculated
the rest of the equations from Eq. (6) to Eq. (12). Qa = τ α Q (5)
1662
M.R. Darwesh and M.S. Ghoname Energy Reports 7 (2021) 1657–1671

Absorption efficiency (ηa ) following equation, Eq. (17), according to (Abdellatif et al., 2009).

ηa = (Qa /Q ) × 100 (6) Qs1 Ms × Cp × (Tk2 − Tk1 )

Useful heat gain to storage (QC )
Proper heat gain from the solar collector was computed using
the known amount of heat energy acquired by the water that
passed through it, using this equation (7)
Qc = m Cp (To − Ti )/1000
Heat losses from the solar collector (QL )
Heat losses from the solar collector were computed using Eq.
(8)
QL = QA − QC
= (17)
Qg 3600 × 1000 × Qg
Biogas production rate
This is the biogas rate (in units of m3 /m3 fermented/day)
produce from the starter of digestion. A digester with a total
volume of 0.10 m3 was fed 60% (60 kg) manure, 20% (20 kg)
(7) water, and the space between the solution and the top head of the
digester is (0.02m3 ), which represents 20% of the total digester
volume
Biogas heat energy
This indicator can be calculated using Eqs. (18) from
(8) Abdel-Hadi and Abdel El-Azeem (2008) and El-Sayed et al. (2010).

Heat transfer efficiency (ηh ) Emethane = (Vbiogas ×Rm ×HV ×ηcomp. )/1000 (18)
Eq. (9) was used to calculated heat transfer efficiency.
Rm depends on the digester temperature as follows 60% for di-
ηh = (Qc /Qa ) × 100 (9) gester temperature of 30 ◦ C, 63% for digester temperature of
35 ◦ C, and 66% for Digester temperature of 40 ◦ C. The biogas yield
Overall thermal efficiency (ηo ) was calculated as follows:
Overall, thermal efficiency is defined as the ratio of the useful
The biogas yield = total biogas produced from a digester
energy gain to the incident solar energy, over a particular period
using Eq. (10). − biogas produced from the starter. (19)

ηo = (Qc /Q ) × 100 (10) 3. Results and discussion

Solar energy stored (Qs ) 3.1. Solar collector thermal performance

Solar energy stored was determined using Eq. (11)
A thermal performance test of a solar collector is the first
Ms
Qs1 = Cp (Tk2 − Tk1 )/1000 (11) step in the analytical performance of the system. Here, the evac-
3600 uated tube solar collector’s performance investigated in several
respects: the solar energy available (Q), absorbed solar energy
Storage system efficiency (ηs )
(Qa ), useful heat gain to storage (Qc ), heat energy losses (QL ), and
Storage system efficiency was calculated using Eq. (12).
solar energy stored in the storage tank (QS ).
ηs = (Qs1 /Qc ) × 100 (12) Solar energy collection, storage, and utilization for any ap-
plication will depend strongly upon the daily average of bright
sunshine hours and the daily average solar radiation flux incident
2.3. Thermal analysis of the heated biogas digester (Qloss−digs )
on the place of interest. The solar radiation flux incident on
the tilted surface of any solar collector is a key factor used to
The total heat losses from the digester’s (QLoss ) whole body can analyze its thermal performance. Variation in solar radiation flux
be computed using Eq. (13). incident from sunrise to sunset could also be affected by the
Td − Ta solar altitude angle during the experimental period. In this ex-
Qloss−digs = 1 ∆x1 ∆x2 1
(13) periment, daily average total solar radiation flux incident values
+ + +
hi A k1 k2 ho A on the tilted surface (tilted at an optimum angle) for the aver-
age day during winter months of November, December, January,
Digester insulation thickness and February were 7.410, 5.644, 5.845, and 6.997 kWh/m2 /day,
The thickness of the insulation for the digester is identified by respectively. These results agree with those published by Fouda
calculating the critical thickness as following in Eqs. (14) and (15). et al. (2016). For each experimental month, its hourly average
k2 total solar radiation is illustrated in Fig. 3.
rcr = (14) This figure shows that the highest value of the solar radiation
ho
flux incident on the solar collector was achieved during Novem-
∆x2 = rcr − r1 (15) ber. From sunrise onward, solar radiation increased gradually
with solar daytime until it reached maximum amounts at or
Electrical heat energy add (Qce ) around noon, after which these values decreased gradually to
When the electric heater, as a conventional source of heating, their minima at sunset. The results revealed that by increasing
heats the water in the storage tank of the solar energy system, the solar time from 8:00 h to 12:00 h, the solar radiation increased
heat energy gain of water can be computed by the heat balance from 511 to 1125, from 335 to 950, from 397 to 1010, and from
equation as following in Eq. (16). 457 to 1120 W/m2 during November, December, January, and
February, respectively. Conversely, by increasing the solar time
Qce = I2 R/1000 = (Ms /3600) Cp (TS1 − TS2 )/1000 (16) from 12:00 h to 16:00, the solar radiation decreased from 1124
to 333, from 950 to 190, from 1010 to 250, and from 1120 to 373
Solar energy is stored for biogas production. W/m2, respectively, during November, December, January, and
This is a ratio between the quantity of solar energy stored and February. These numbers were consistent with those published
the quantity of biogas production. It can be estimated from the by Fouda et al. (2016).
1663
M.R. Darwesh and M.S. Ghoname
Fig. 3. Hourly average total solar radiation flux incident on the tilted surface
during the winter months of the experiment.
Fig. 4 shows the daily average available, absorbed, useful heat
gain, heat losses, and store of solar energy throughout the day-
light time in the different winter months. These four variables
had respective grand means of 11.06, 9.05, 7.63, 1.43, and 4.74
kWh/day in November; likewise, of 8.46, 6.93, 5.90, 1.03, and
4.04 kWh/day in December; of 7.4, 6.05, 5.94, 1.24, and 4.11
kWh/day in January; of 10.50, 8.60, 6.60, 2.04, and 4.83 kWh/day,
all of which were in the range of values found by Darwesh and
Ghoname (2019).
Similarly, Fig. 4 also shows that energy values increased in
the morning and peaked around noon, and then declined in the
afternoon. This trend characterized the behavior of all thermal
performance items, except QL , from sunrise to sunset. Heat loss
is the difference between the amount of solar energy absorbed
and the amount of solar energy used for storage. The evacuated
solar collector has the least possible losses this is an advantage
over the flat collector. Because the collector tubes have a circular
cross-sectional area, it receives solar rays continuously and does
not lose easily because the convection heat transfer coefficient is
low.
Fig. 5 depicts the daily average overall thermal efficiency, heat
transfer efficiency, and storage efficiency of the solar collector
during the heating periods. Their corresponding mean efficiency
values were 67.50%, 82.30%, and 70.68% in November; 66.4%,
81.04%, and 67.18% in December; 63.58, 77.64%, and 68.00% in
January; and 60.91%, 74.41%, and 72.70% in February. These re-
sults were in line with the findings reported by Ayompe et al.
(2011), Gill et al. (2016).
The onset of heating by the solar collector should provide
enough heat storage to operate the system without any stop-
pages. Therefore, the electrical heater was adjusted at 75 ◦ C to
achieve suitable conditions for digesters’ heating requirements.
Fig. 6 shows the behavior of the evacuated solar collector’s tank
temperature over one day (27 November 2017). The electrical
heater was the source for heating water in the storage tank, used
to heat the digesters overnight, from 00:00 h to 11:00 h. At noon
(12:00 h), the temperature of the collector tank was 59.3 ◦ C, and
solar energy served as a source of heated water from 12:00 h to
15:00 h. The heated water in the last four hours was then used
to heat the digester for another five hours (from 16:00 h to 20:00
h). After that, the temperature in the storage tank had fallen to
56.3 ◦ C; hence, the electrical heater became the source for heating
water from 21:00 h to 23:00 h. Data revealed that the maximum
1664
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 1657–1671
Table 1
Operating hours for the heating system (solar or electricity).
Date Elec. storage Elec. operating Solar storage Solar operating
27/11/2017 7 8 5 4
29/12/2017 9 7 3 5
4/1/2018 11 11 1 1
26/2/2018 4 7 5 8
and minimum ambient temperature was 19.88 ◦ C and 13.03 ◦ C,
respectively, while the maximum and minimum solar radiation
was 1150.12 and 416 W/m2 . The contribution of electrical and
solar energy to heating water in the storage tank amounted to
65.7% and 37.3%, respectively.
Fig. 7 shows the behavior of the evacuated solar collector’s
tank temperature on 29 December 2017. The electrical heater
was in operation, heating the water in the storage tank from
12:00 h to 02:00 h. The amount of hot water in the collector tank
during the last three hours was used to heat both digesters for
a successive 2 h from 03:00 h to 04:00 h. After 04:00 h, the sun
was still absent, so the electrical heater began to heat the water
again for two hours, from 04:00 h to 06:00 h. This heated water
was then used to heat the digester for the next two hours, from
06:00 h to 08:00 h. At 10:00 h, the temperature of the collector
tank had reached 71.5 ◦ C. Solar energy was the source for heating
the water in the storage tank by which digesters were heated. The
results demonstrated that the maximum and minimum ambient
temperature was 19.95 ◦ C and 11.73 ◦ C, respectively, while the
maximum and minimum solar radiation was 999.74 and 195.91
W/m2 , respectively. Electrical and solar energy provided respec-
tively 71.46% and 28.54% of the heating requirements for water
in the storage tank.
Fig. 8, is the plotted behavior of the evacuated solar collector’s
tank temperature on 4 January 2018. On this day, the maximum
and minimum ambient temperature was 15.6 ◦ C and 8 ◦ C, respec-
tively, while the maximum and minimum solar radiation were
1040.71 and 205.55 W/m2 , respectively. These values influenced
the behavior of storage tank temperature. Electrical heating was
needed to heat water in the storage tank that was used for
heating digesters on almost all day hours, meeting 77.38% of these
heating requirements, except from 14:00 to 16:00 h, when solar
energy heated the stored water (i.e., 22.62% contribution).
Fig. 9, is the plotted behavior of the evacuated solar collector’s
tank temperature on 26 February 2019. The electrical heater was
used for heating water inside the storage tank of the solar collec-
tor and using it to heat the digesters in separate times from 00:00
h to 10:00 h, corresponding to 49.95% of heating requirements. At
10:00 h, the temperature of the collector tank was 53.2 ◦ C; from
10:00 h to 16:00 h, the solar energy was the source for heating
water. Solar energy was able to raise the temperature of water in
the solar collector storage tank from 53.2 ◦ C to 65.16 ◦ C for over
eight hours, and this heated water was used to heat the digesters
for seven hours. Thus, solar energy contributed to 51.05% of the
heating energy requirements. These results showed that the max-
imum and minimum ambient temperature was 22.95 and 9.55o C,
respectively, while the maximum and minimum solar radiation
was 1120 and 372.254 W/m2 , respectively.
Data in Figs. 6–9 were summarized in Table 1 which indicates
the contribution percentage for each source of heating.
Table 1 summarizes the contents of Figs. 6, 7, 8, and 9 as it
shows a summary of the number of hours that relied on storage
and electrical operation, as well as storage and solar operation.
3.2. Digester thermal performance
Temperatures for the horizontal digester, vertical digester,
storage tank of the collector, and ambient temperature were
M.R. Darwesh and M.S. Ghoname
Fig. 4. Energy values for the solar collector during the winter months of the experiment.
discussed from November to February months using represents
days for each month. Fig. 10 shows the ambient and storage tank
temperatures were 13.03 ◦ C–19.88 ◦ C and 52.91 ◦ C–71.1 ◦ C in
November; 11.73 ◦ C–19.95 ◦ C and 42.22 ◦ C–71.5 ◦ C in December;
8.05 ◦ C–17.94 ◦ C, and 45.49–74.2 ◦ C in January; 9.55 ◦ C–22.95 ◦ C
and 43.07 ◦ C– 74.71 ◦ C in February. The horizontal/vertical di-
gesters’ mean temperature for November, December, January,
and February months were 31.36 ◦ C/34.0 ◦ C, 34.22 ◦ C/36.65 ◦ C,
31.29 ◦ C/33.47 ◦ C, and 32.30 ◦ C/41.17 ◦ C, respectively. So it is
clear that in all treatments during the experimental period, the
digesters’ mean temperature for the vertical digester was higher
than the horizontal one, which suggested a better distribution
of heat in the shape of the former than the latter. A plausible
reason for this was heating the digesters, the sensor of the control
device was placed in the water track outside of the tank and
inside the digesters. Thus there was no control over each digester
separately, so when the vertical digesters reach a specific temper-
ature, the second horizontal digesters will not reach the required
degree. This difference between vertical and horizontal shapes
is referred to as the difference in the convection heat transfer
coefficient between both shapes.
Storage tank temperatures are liable to change over a 24-
h time span. When the storage tank temperature reached the
adjusted value, the hot water’s circulation began; in other words,
the digesters draw the heat content of the storage tank collector
to provide the required conditions. Accordingly, fluctuations in
the storage tank temperatures on an hourly basis ranged from
40 ◦ C to 75 ◦ C.
1665
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 1657–1671
3.3. Biogas production and pH value
As seen in Fig. 11a. in the horizontal digester, the average
quantity of biogas produced was 7.05, 10.6, and 13.19 L/day at
37 ◦ C o C, 41 ◦ C, and 45 ◦ C, respectively. While, for the vertical
digester, the corresponding values were 4.06, 5.44, and 6.45 L/day
at 37 ◦ C, 41 ◦ C, and 45 ◦ C.
According to Fig. 11b. under the three different setting tem-
peratures of 37 ◦ C, 41 ◦ C, and 45 ◦ C, daily total biogas productivity
during this experiment was 0.456, 1.049, and 1.126 m3 gas/m3
manure/d in the horizontal digester, whereas it was much lower
in the vertical digester, at 0.28, 0.331, and 0.355 m3 gas/m3
manure/d, respectively. The higher productivity of the horizontal
digester indicated that increasing the subjected surface area for
diluted cattle dung and applying equal pressures at all digester
sides tended to augment biogas output more easily, with perhaps
little or no resistance, when compared with the vertical digester.
Fig. 11c. illustrates that the daily total heat energy of biogas for
horizontal digester was 3.11, 3.33, and 3.44 (kWh/m3 of manure
/day) at setting temperatures of 37 ◦ C, 41 ◦ C, and 45 ◦ C, respec-
tively, while in the vertical digester, the corresponding values
were 3.12, 3.32, and 3.36 kWh/m3 of manure /day.
The pH of the digestion liquid material and its stability is a cru-
cial parameter since methane production only proceeds at a high
rate when pH is maintained in the neutral range. Fig. 11d shows
that the pH in the horizontal digester under setting temperatures
was similar to those of the vertical digester.
M.R. Darwesh and M.S. Ghoname Energy Reports 7 (2021) 1657–1671

Fig. 5. The thermal efficiency of the solar collector during the winter months of the experiment.

Fig. 6. Heating storage and operating cycle for the collector tank on 27/11/2017.

Fig. 7. Heating storage and operating cycle for the collector tank on 29/12/2017.

3.4. Energy production

0.314 kWh/L/day was obtained in the horizontal digester at 45 ◦ C.

Fig. 12a. indicates the amount of solar energy stored that is
necessary to produce one liter of biogas per day at each setting
temperature tested (37o C, 41o C, and 45o C) throughout the 4-
month experimental research period. These results showed that
the minimum amount of required solar energy stored that of
1666
By contrast, the maximum solar energy stored required, that of
1.01 kWh/L/day, was obtained in the vertical digester at 37 ◦ C.
These results further indicated that increasing setting tempera-
ture from 41 ◦ C to 45 ◦ C led to a reduction in the daily average
M.R. Darwesh and M.S. Ghoname Energy Reports 7 (2021) 1657–1671

Fig. 8. Heating storage and operating cycle for the collector tank 04/01/2018.
Fig. 9. Heating storage and operating cycle for the collector tank 26/02/2018.

Fig. 10. The temperatures for the horizontal and vertical digesters, the storage tank, and ambient air.

1667
M.R. Darwesh and M.S. Ghoname
Fig. 11. Biogas production and ph value.
solar energy storage (kWh/L/day) required to produce biogas in
both digesters. In the horizontal digester, the daily average solar
energy stored that was required to produce biogas was 0.314 and
0.582 kWh/L/day under 37 ◦ C and 45 ◦ C, respectively, whereas
the vertical digester required more stored solar energy at these
temperatures (0.65 to 1.01 kWh/L/day).
Consequently, the amount of stored solar energy required to
produce biogas from the horizontal digester was less than that of
the vertical digester because more biogas was produced from the
horizontal than the vertical digester.
Fig. 12b. depicts the total biogas energy production, solar
energy, and electrical energy throughout anaerobic fermentation
for cattle dung using three different setting temperatures and
two different digester types reliant on solar energy for biogas
production. These results indicated that total biogas energy pro-
duction at 37 ◦ C, 41 ◦ C, and 45◦ C was 15.67, 23.94, and 30.87
kWh, respectively. However, the results also demonstrated that
the total electrical energy consumed (water pumps and electrical
heater) for heating the cattle dung solution at the same setting
temperatures was 3.21, 7.04, and 9.52 kWh, respectively, such
that total energy consumed at these same conditions was cor-
respondingly 12.59, 17.6, and 20.51 kWh. Thus, the solar power
1668
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 1657–1671
system provided 75.21%, 60.00%, and 53.58% of the energy con-
sumed for heating the livestock manure solution at the digester
setting temperatures of 37 ◦ C, 41 ◦ C and 45 ◦ C respectively.
3.5. Energy balance for the collectors and the digesters
Our data showed that the solar heat energy added to the stor-
age tank decreased throughout November to December, falling
from 7.63 to 5.91 kWh/day, but it began to increase from January
to February, rising from 5.94 to 6.56 kWh/day. Useful heat gains
from electricity which added to the storage tank increased gradu-
ally from 14.6 to 20.32 kWh/day from November through January.
The solar heat energy added to the storage tank in February
was 6.56 kWh/day, an amount greater than in previous months
because the solar flux incident on the collector was higher in
December and January; as a result, the useful heat gains from
electricity which added to the storage tank was 11.99 kWh/day
which is the lowest value of useful heat gain from electricity
added to the storage tank. This result is referred to the external
temperatures in December and January is very low in the morning
and evening, and therefore the loss in the stored quantity is very
large. In February, the external temperature rises, and thus we
M.R. Darwesh and M.S. Ghoname Energy Reports 7 (2021) 1657–1671

Table 2
Details of the heat energy added or lost from the storage tank and digesters in different winter months of the experiment.
Month Values Qce kWh/day Qc kWh/day Qtot kWh/day Qloss-tank kWh/day Qloss-hor.dig . kWh/day Qloss−ver.dig kWh/day Qloss-digs kWh/day
Sum 14.60 7.63 22.23 17.61 0.79 1.043 1.83
November
Mean 1.46 0.85 1.39 1.47 0.072 0.087 0.152
Sum 17.56 5.91 23.47 16.82 0.73 1.82 2.55
December
Mean 2.19 0.66 2.85 1.4 0.061 0.14 0.204
Sum 20.32 5.94 26.26 21.98 1.083 1.51 2.59
January
Mean 1.69 0.66 2.35 1.99 0.084 0.12 0.2
Sum 11.99 6.56 18.55 11.99 0.847 0.846 1.7
February
Mean 1.33 0.73 2.06 0.922 0.066 0.057 0.14

inputs and outputs of the proposed system. Financial viability

Fig. 12. Solar energy for biogas production and energy production.
preserve the stored quantity. Furthermore, as reported in Table 2,
the heat losses from the vertical digester exceeded those from the
horizontal one.
3.6. Cost analysis
Cost analysis is a fundamentally important step for gauging
the potential success of solar energy systems. It is imperative
that such a cost analysis for any apparatus utilized in agricultural
applications be carried out, taking into consideration both the
1669
is a determinant factor for the widespread implementation of
any solar energy system and its digester units to produce biogas.
Cost analysis commonly tests the fixed costs of solar energy
systems and digester units (initial costs), costs of the production
process (variable costs), and payback (return profit on capital).
Initial costs of solar energy systems and digester units comprise
its construction and what parts it utilizes (i.e., pipes and valves
of the system, water pump, evacuated tube solar collector, and
two digester units in the present study). The variable costs are
those that change primarily with the processing practices as used.
These operating costs (variable costs) include the price of animal
wastes, the electrical energy consumed as well as the costs of
labor. Accordingly, total costs of the production process and for
producing biogas include both the variable and fixed costs, the
latter inclusive of depreciation of materials (capital), interest, in-
surance, and taxes. Common additional variable costs can include
seeds, soil, mixture, fertilizers, pesticides, energy additions, and
labor (Fudholi et al., 2015).
Initial costs for the system field-tested in our study are listed
in Table 3. The total initial costs of both the solar collector and
its digester units reached about $2660 (USD). Whereas, the initial
cost per operation (based on 12 operations) was just $221.66
(USD), and the salvage value per year of the initial costs per
operation was about $55.44 (USD). Table 4 presents the variable
costs, which totaled $38.93(USD) per operation; hence, the total
annual costs for each operation inclusive of two different items
(construction plus operating costs) was $94.34(USD).
The system used in this study was designed and built to
examine some engineering parameters at the scale of a laboratory
digester. Therefore, the hot water tank volume and solar collect
size used were not appropriately matched to the size of each
digester. The proper size of the solar energy system has a 3-m3
digester size; accordingly, to calculate the income of digester out-
puts, the results should be expressed in 3m3 (volume of digester).
Together, the two digesters produced total biogas at a rate of 47
L/d, and the actual organic fertilizer produced from the biogas
digesters amounted to 0.151 kg/d. However, when these values
were assigned to a fermenter of 3 m3 m in size, therefore, the
biogas production and the bio-fertilizer (liquid and solid) yield
from the digesters were 21.04 m3 /month and 2250 kg/month,
respectively.
The unit volume of biogas equalized 1.25 kWh, which meant
26.30 kWh of electrical energy was the produced quantity. The
net income, according to the current market rates from selling
both biogas production and bio-fertilizer, was $32.87(USD), and
$138.88(USD) for a total income of $171.75 (USD) for one month.
Consequently, the estimated return profit was $77.41(USD), which
represents 45.15% of the total income per operation.
However, if electrical energy is employed to heat the digesters,
the operational costs will increase. From the results mentioned
above, it can be seen that solar energy reduced the consumption
of electrical energy by 61.28%. This stark reduction is very impor-
tant in cases of energy shortage. From an environmental point of
M.R. Darwesh and M.S. Ghoname Energy Reports 7 (2021) 1657–1671

Table 3 4. Conclusion
The initial cost of the solar heating system and digester units (using a 25%
depreciation).
To work, the process of biogas production requires the right
No. Items Cost (USD) Salvage year Depreciation
temperatures, especially over the winter months. Electricity con-
1 Pipes and valves 460 10 46 sumes large amounts of energy when relied upon to heat the
2 Water pump (1 hp) 240 10 24
3 Evacuated tube solar collector 720 25 28.8
digesters. However, solar energy as renewable energy represents
4 Two digester units 1240 25 49.6 a solution to reduce electricity consumption for heating such
5 Total initial costs 2660 – 665 digesters. Still, it alone cannot operate this system all the time
6 Cost per operation 221.66 – 55.41 (day and night). Moreover, the little information in the literature
concerning the contribution of solar energy in hybrid approaches
Table 4 to heat the digester units was the impetus for carrying out this
Operating costs of the biogas production unit that used the evacuated solar study. Therefore, two digester units were fabricated and attached
collector. to a hybrid heating system (solar and electricity), with a control
No. Item Cost (USD) unit to adjust the suitable conditions in the experiment. The
1 Animal waste 5.00 present study assessed the contribution made by solar energy in
2 The electrical energy consumed (300 kWh) 28.93 the hybrid system, evaluated the thermal performance of the so-
3 Labor 5.00
lar system and digesters units, the thermal behavior of digesters,
4 Total variable costs 38.93
and determined the quantity of biogas produced as energy under
experimental conditions.
Table 5 The main results of the present work could be summarized as
Results of the financial assessment of biogas digesters. follows:
Profitability index (i = 8.75%, n = 25 years) Financial assessment 1- Increasing the set temperature within the horizontal and
Net Present Value, NPV $15580 (USD) vertical digesters from 37 ◦ C to 45 ◦ C increased the daily average
Internal Rate of Return, IRR (%) 60% volumetric biogas production by 87.12% and 59.45%, respectively.
Payback Period (years) 1.67
2- Setting the temperature to 45 ◦ C seems optimal for heating
cattle dung during its anaerobic digestion process.
3- Nonetheless, the solar energy system was able to provide
view, the production of biogas as a clean energy source via solar 75.21%, 60%, and 53.58% of the energy consumed in the cattle
energy is promising for supplying the anticipated demand for it. dung solution heating at different operational temperatures of
The produced organic (bio-) fertilizers formed by the AD process 37 ◦ C, 41 ◦ C, and 45 o C, respectively.
can also be effectively applied to enhance agricultural crop pro- 4- The estimated return profit was $77.41(USD), which repre-
ductivity; this is very important if we hope to replace chemical sents 45.15% of the total income per operation and the payback
fertilizers with bio-fertilizers posing lower risks to human health. period (PBP) was 1.67 years.
Moreover, the use of bio-fertilizers in producing various horti-
cultural and agronomy crops will reduce associated drainage and CRediT authorship contribution statement
groundwater resource pollution risks, so these water resources
are more likely to be reused in the irrigation of cultivated areas. M.R. Darwesh: Designed the study, Wrote the protocol, Su-
After quantification and valuation of the costs and benefits of pervised the experimental work, Wrote the first draft of the
the biogas systems, three criteria where used in the analysis of manuscript. M.S. Ghoname: Collected the data, Carried out the
the financial viability, namely, payback period (PBP), net present study’s analyses on the thermal performance of solar systems and
value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR). The economic life of digesters.
the biogas plant is 25 years. Results of the financial assessment
are shown in Table 5. Declaration of competing interest
The payback period (PBP) refers to the number of years it
would take for an investment to return its original cost of invest- The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
ment through the annual net cash revenues it generates. While cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
the payback period is 1.7 years, which shows that the project has to influence the work reported in this paper.
a good feature of not being a risk, operating costs of the project
can be recovered within a short duration of 1.7 years, when Acknowledgment
compared with the economic life-cycle of the project, 25 years.
Net present value (NPV) is a way of comparing the value of Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.
money now with the value of money in the future. The NPV in
the economic analysis is 15,850, which shows that the project has References
good economic profitability, since the NPV > 0.
Abbasi, T., Tauseef, S., Abbasi, S.A., 2011. Biogas Energy, vol. 2. Springer Science
Internal rate of return (IRR) is a financial analysis tool that
& Business Media, New York, NY, USA.
estimates the interest rate that would make the present value of Abdel-Hadi, M.A., Abdel El-Azeem, S.A.M., 2008. Effect of heating, mixing, and
a stream of net cash revenues equal to zero. digester type on biogas production from buffalo dung. Misr. J. Ag. Eng. 25
The project IRR which is 60% is greater than the presence of a (4), 1454–1477.
Abdellatif, S.M., Elashmay, N.M., Kassem, A.M., 2009. Optimum tilt angle and
discount rate of 8.75%, which shows that the project is worthy of
orientation for a flat plate solar water heater under Egyptian conditions.
investment and has a good ability to make a profit. AMA J. 40 (3), 73–77.
In conclusion, the financial analysis of the biogas digesters Akyurek, Z., 2018. The potential of biogas energy from animal waste in the
shows great potential for making a profit on capital investment. Mediterranean region of Turkey. J. Energy Syst. 2 (24), 159–167.
The benefit from the biogas production and biofertilizers, the Al Khamis, T.M., El-Khazali, R., Kabban, M.M., Alhusein, M.A., 2000. Heating
biogas as a reactor using a solar energy system with a temperature control
economic profitability of the project is expected to increase, unit. Sol. Energy 3, 239–247.
investing more worthwhile to farmers, since the substrate was Ali, R.S., 2015. Biogas Production from Poultry Manure using Novel Solar Assisted
available. System (M.Sc thesis). Birzeit University, Palestine.

1670
M.R. Darwesh and M.S. Ghoname
Ayompe, L.M., Duffy, A., McKeever, M., Conlon, M., McCormack, S.J., 2011.
Comparative field performance study of flat plate and heat pipe evacuated
tube collectors (ETCs) for domestic water heating systems in a temperate
climate. Energy 36, 3370–3378.
Chen, Z., Qin, C., 2014. Experiments and simulation of a solar-assisted household
biogas system. Energy Procedia 61, 1760–1763.
Cho, S.K., I’m, W.T., Kim, D.H., Kim, M.H., Shin, S.H., Oh, S.E., 2013. Dry anaerobic
digestion of food waste under mesophilic conditions: Performance and
methanogenic community analysis. Bioresour. Technol. 131, 210–217.
Darwesh, M., 2015. Thermal performance test of evacuated tube and flat plate
solar collectors under climatic conditions of Egypt. Misr J. Agric. Eng. 32 (4),
1717–1736, www.mjae.eg. https://mjae.journals.ekb.eg.
Darwesh, M.R., Ghoname, M.S., 2019. Solar energy collection, storage, and
utilization for domestic purposes. J. Ag. Eng. 36 (2), 663–688, https://mjae.
journals.ekb.eg.
Dioha, I., Ikeme, C., Nafi’u, T., Oba, N., Yusuf, M., 2013. Effect of carbon to nitrogen
ratio on biogas production. Int. Res. J. Natl. Sci. 1, 1–10.
Duffie, J.A., Beckman, W., 2005. Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes, third ed.
John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA..
El-Mashad, H.M., Vanloon, W.K.P., Zeeman, G., 2004. Design of a solar
thermophilic anaerobic reactor for small farms. Biosyst. Eng. 87 (3), 345–353.
El-Sayed, A.S., Mehana, T.A., Abdel-Hadi, M.A., Mustafa, M.A., 2010. Methane
production by anaerobic digestion from cattle dung and chicken manure
under laboratory conditions. In: The 17th Annual Conference of the Misr
Society of Ag. Eng, 28 October. pp. 1308–1326, https://mjae.journals.ekb.eg.
Feng, R., Dong, L.J., Lix, T., 2016a. Performance of a novel household solar heating
thermostatic biogas system. Appl. Therm. Eng. 96, 519–526.
Feng, R., Dong, L.J., Lix, T., 2016b. Performance of a novel household solar heating
thermostatic biogas system. Appl. Therm. Eng. 96, 519–526, by the utilization
of different agricultural wastes. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica 9(6) 65–80.
Fouda, T.Z., Darwesh, M., Gremida, N., 2016. Study on the thermal performance
of evacuated solar collector system. Misr. J. Agric. Eng. 33 (2), 589–602,
https://mjae.journals.ekb.eg.
Fudholi, A., Sopian, K., Bakhtyyar, B., Gabbasa, M., 2015. Review of solar drying
systems with air-based solar collectors in Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 51, 1191–1204.
Gill, L., Mahonad, J.M., Ryan, K., 2016. The performance of an evacuated tube
solar hot water system in a domestic house throughout a year in a northern
maritime climate (Dublin). Sol. Energy 137, 261–272.
Guo, P., Jiri, Z., Ma, R., Yu, N., Yuan, Y., 2019. Biogas production and heat transfer
performance of multi-phase flow digesters. Energies 12, 1960.
Huber, S., 2019. Small-Scale Biogas Production from Organic Waste and
Application in Mid-Income Countries – A Case Study of a Lebanese
Community (M.Sc.). Uppasla University.
Kassem, H., Fouda, T.Z., 2016. Reprocess animal and plastic wastes for biogas
production. In: Third International Environmental Forum, Environmental
Pollution: Problem and Solution. Tanta University, Egypt.
Khoiyangbam, R.S., Gupta, N., Kumar, S., 2011. Biogas Technology. Towards
sustainable development, India, ISBN: 9788179934043, TER1.
1671
View publication stats
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 1657–1671
Kocar, C., Eryasar, A., 2007. An application of solar energy storage in the gas:
solar heated biogas plants. Energy Sources 29 (16), 1513–1520.
Lu, Y., Tian, Y., Lu, H., Wu, L., Li, X., 2015. Study of solar-heated biogas
fermentation system with a phase change thermal storage device. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 88, 418–424.
Maji, I.K., 2015. Does clean energy contribute to economic growth? Evidence
from Nigeria. Energy Rep. 1, 145–150.
Mao, C., Yong Zhong, F., Xiaojiao, W., Guangxin, R., 2013. Review on research
achievements of biogas from anaerobic digestion. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 45, 540–555.
Matos, C.F., Paes, J.L., Pinheiro, E.F.M., De Campos, D.V.B., 2017. Biogas produc-
tion from dairy cattle manure, under organic and conventional production
systems. Braz. Assoc. Agric. Eng. 7 (6), 1081–1090.
Meggyes, A., 2012. Biogas and energy production by utilization of different
agricultural wastes. Acta Polytech. Hung. 9 (6), 65–80.
Morales-Polo, C., Cledera-Castro, M., Yolanda Moratilla Soria, B., 2019. Biogas
production from vegetable and fruit markets waste-compositional and batch
characterizations. Sustainability 11, 67–90.
Oslaj, M., Mursec, B., 2010. Biogas as a renewable energy source. Tech. Gaz. 17,
109–114.
Pandey, P.K., Ndegwa, P.M., Alldredge, J.R., Pitts, M., Soupir, M.L., 2010. Modeling
effects of granules on the start-up of anaerobic digestion of dairy wastewater
with Longmuir and extended Freundlich equations. Bioprocess. Biosyst. Eng.
33, 833–845.
Razaviarani, V., Buchanan, I.D., 2015. Calibration of the anaerobic digestion
model No. 1 (ADM1) for steady-state anaerobic co-digestion of municipal
wastewater sludge with restaurant grease trap waste. Chem. Eng. J. 266,
91–99.
Rico, C., Diego, R., Valcarce, A., Rico, J.L., 2014. Biogas production from various
typical organic wastes generated in the region of Cantabria (Spain): methane
yields and co-digestion tests. Smart Grid Renew. Energy 5, 128.
Sankina, O.V., Chernysh, A.P., Sankin, A.S., 2017. Usage of farm animal waste for
biogas production. IOP Conf. Series: Earth Environ. Sci. 66, 012034.
Starr, K., Laura, T.P., Lidia, L., Xavier, G., Gara, V., 2014. Optimization of environ-
mental benefits of carbon mineralization technologies for biogas upgrading.
J. Clean. Prod. 76, 32–45.
Su, X., Li, H., Zhang, X., Song, B., 2017. Model and experiment study on solar
heating biogas production in rural China. Procedia Eng. 205, 3525–3530.
Tumusiime, E., Kirabira, J.B., Musinguzi, W.B., 2019a. Long-life performance of
biogas systems for productive applications: The role of R & D and Policy.
Energy Rep. 5, 579–583.
Tumusiime, E., Kirabira, J.B., Musinguzi, W.B., 2019b. Long-life performance
of biogas systems for productive applications: The role of R & D and
Policy. Energy Rep. 5, 579–583, http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/
Publications/IRENA-Statistics-Measuring-Small-Scale-Biogas-2016.pdf.
Ubwa, S.T., Asemave, K., Oshido, B., Idoko, A., 2013. Preparation of biogas from
plants and animal waste. Int. J. Sci. Technol. (IJSI) 2 (6), 480–485.
Weil, P., 2010. Biogas production: current state and perspective. Appl. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 85, 849–860.