Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 446–456

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biomass and Bioenergy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Research paper

Potential, environmental, and socio-economic assessment of biogas T

production in Ethiopia: The case of Amhara regional state
Elias W. Gabisaa,b,c, Shabbir H. Gheewalaa,b,∗
a
The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi, 126 Pracha Uthit Road, Bangkok, 10140, Thailand
b
Centre for Energy Technology and Environment, PERDO, Bangkok, Thailand
c
Faculty of Chemical and Food Engineering, Bahir Dar Institute of Technology, Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Bio-energy is a major energy source providing more than 80% of the energy demand in Ethiopia, particularly in
Biogas the Amhara regional state. Biogas is the emerging bio-energy in the rural area of the region through biogas
Environmental development program for potential households. The current biogas digesters are evaluated using onsite data
Socio-economic collection in collaboration with the regional biogas program office. The emissions from each stage of the biogas
Emissions
production process are estimated using life cycle approach. The socio-economic benefits from the biogas im-
Household
plementation are addressed considering well-known socio-economic indicators like net present value, payback
Digester
period, benefit cost ratio, and women's opportunity cost. The results show that there is a huge biogas potential in
the region at 223 PJ per annum. Currently, there are about 4500 operational household biogas digesters in the
region providing 0.13 PJ per year, only 0.058% of the total theoretical potential. The biogas digesters employed
(4500) reduces about 1984 tonnes CO2eq of GHG emissions per year. In addition, other indoor pollutants like CO,
NMOC, and PM10 are also reduced at 1517, 108, and 41 tonnes per annum, respectively. The benefit cost ratio of
1.8 and a short payback period (∼2 years) shows that the sector development is promising. The exhaustive
utilization of the available cow manure potential will result in women's benefit of about 890,300 US$ per
annum. Thus, the sector is very interesting and more efforts from the government and the households can
improve the sector to maximize the benefits.

1. Introduction potentially identified resources, which can provide a sufficient amount

Bio-energy is the backbone of all energy in Ethiopia providing above
80% of the energy demand of the country [1]. The demand is fulfilled
by traditional utilization of the biomass like open burning in a three
stone stove system. Nowadays there are efforts to improve the bioe-
nergy generation and utilization as well as the handling mechanisms.
Among those improvements, biogas is the one that is aggressively ap-
proached by the government. Studies shows that biogas in rural
households of sub-Saharan African country could provide a more sus-
tainable energy than wood fuels in the countries there is an abundant
water [2]. Accordingly, since 2007, the national biogas program was
established throughout the different regions of the country [3].
The Amhara regional state is one of the nine regions employing
biogas technology throughout the rural areas. In the region, the im-
plementation has already been started, as there are potential resources,
which can able to generate biogas among the households. The
of feedstock for the biogas, is the availability of huge amount of cattle
as well as water in the region. Among the different available technol-
ogies, the fixed dome type is selected to be employed for the biogas
generation in the region, because it is economically feasible as well as
occupies less area. The adopted biogas digester has different sizes
ranging between 4 m3 to 10 m3. Above 75% of the digesters have a
capacity of 8 m3 and the remaining are shared among the different
sizes. The selection of the digester size is based on the number of cattle
the household has so that the required amount of the dung can be
provided to operate the digester sustainably. Despite the huge potential
to produce biogas, the current practice; direct application of livestock
manure, open fire combustion of biomasses and crop residues is con-
tributing to significant amount of emissions to the atmosphere. In ad-
dition, the reduction in emissions to the atmosphere by utilizing che-
mical fertilizer is also significant, which can be replaced by organic
fertilizer from the household biogas digesters [4,5].

∗
Corresponding author. The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi, 126 Pracha Uthit Road,
Bangkok, 10140, Thailand.
E-mail address: shabbir_g@jgsee.kmutt.ac.th (S.H. Gheewala).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.02.003
Received 16 November 2018; Received in revised form 31 January 2019; Accepted 4 February 2019
0961-9534/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E.W. Gabisa and S.H. Gheewala
In this study, the theoretical potential of biogas from different
feedstock in the regional state of Amhara, which is the second largest
region in the country, was determined. In this region, the production of
animals and cereals are highly intensified for their sustainable daily life.
The major cereals are produced in this region in large amount and this
region is the provider for the other remaining regions of the country
next to Oromia Regional state. Actually, the high quality teff, the staple
food in Ethiopia, is produced in this region, but there are no studies on
the utilization of residues from this cereal other than the traditional
ones as animal feed and as a binding fiber in village house building [6].
The study is aimed to assess the environmental and socio-economic
performance of the biogas production in the Amhara regional state of
the country. Greenhouse gas emissions reduction as well as other
emissions such as particulate matter (PM10), carbon dioxide (CO), and
non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) reductions because of biogas
utilization for the theoretical potential as well as the current opera-
tional 4500-biogas digesters were investigated to evaluate the en-
vironmental performance of the sector. The socio-economic perfor-
mance of the sector was also analyzed considering women's opportunity
cost for fuel collection and cooking, benefit cost ratio, net present value,
and payback period of the existing system. The net energy balance of
the system is also considered to see the energy replacement rate of the
biogas.
Household biogas system has rarely been studied for its sustain-
ability. China has a leading position in the development as well as re-
searching the household and commercial biogas systems followed by
India and Germany [7,8]. Most of the studies conducted in these regions
are considering commercial biogas digesters which are dedicated to
produce biogas electricity from different feedstocks. There is a very
limited number of studies in the literature on the life cycle assessment
of household biogas systems [9–11]. Different studies have, however,
been conducted on the environmental performance analysis of house-
hold biogas in Ethiopia and most of them are focused on the Oromia
[12,13] and Tigray [14,15] regional states and addressed a specific
issue, either economic or environmental. For example Mengistu et al.
[16] have studied the GHG emission reductions due to substitution of
different final energy uses by biogas. In their study, only final energy
use substitution is considered rather than the entire value chain or life
cycle. Similarly, Amare [17] has also studied the GHG emission re-
duction considering end use impacts in specific small woreda (district),
of Fogera. They try to address the GHG emission reduction considering
only the end use fuel substitution. Lansche and Muller [18] have in-
vestigated the substitution of traditional cow dung burning with biogas
in Ethiopia. They followed an LCA approach to investigate the en-
vironmental performance replacing direct combustion of cow dung by
biogas. In their study, they considered cow dung as the only final en-
ergy source thus allocating all the emissions reduction to only a specific
fuel, cow dung.
However, the current study follows the LCA approach to see the
environmental consequences considering the entire value chain –
manure management to end use – as a fuel substitution and current
final energy source mix (wood, residue and dung) which has a sig-
nificant impact on the results of the study. In addition, the current study
does not consider only the GHG emissions reduction but also includes
other non-GHG emissions reductions, which are identified by the World
Health Organization as significant indoor air pollutants from indoor
cooking. Furthermore, the current biomass energy mix used by house-
holds in Ethiopia are wood, crop residues and dung. Therefore, in this
study the current energy mix ratio is used (contrary to considering
single energy source) to determine the emissions reduction along the
life cycle as laid out by ISO standards for life cycle assessment [19,20].
The study, in addition to filling the knowledge gap in the scientific
community, gives a holistic insight rather than addressing a specific
issue regarding household biogas system. The suggested holistic ap-
proach will lead to have a complete picture of the system so that the
reader or the scientific community can grasp the full idea on what is
447
Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 446–456
going on within the system. Only concentrating on the GHG emissions
reduction may overlook negative social or economic implications or
ignore other pollutant emissions.
The study also gives a clear visualization for decision and policy
makers as it addresses all the sustainability pillars. It will also minimize
the risk of deciding the biogas development sector based on a single
sustainability dimension. This makes the study unique as compared to
earlier studies conducted in the country and it is the first of its kind
among the studies conducted on biogas sustainability in Ethiopia. In
this regard, the employed approach in this study can be extrapolated to
other regions for a similar comprehensive investigation of the biogas
sector. Furthermore, it is very helpful to show whether or not the sector
development is in line with the UNDP sustainable development goals
for energy [21].
2. Materials and methods
In addition to the calculations performed to determine the available
potential, the study uses data on bioenergy and biogas potentials from
previous studies in published journals in Ethiopia, sub-Sahara African
and other developing countries to quantify the environmental and
socio-economical benefits. The Food and Agricultural Organization of
the United Nations (FAO) database, the Central Statistics Agency (CSA)
of Ethiopia, Ethiopian Federal and Amhara regional state ministries’
report and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are among the
sources of data used in the study. Some of the data for the existing
biogas plants were also collected through field survey. About 1900
biogas digesters were surveyed in collaboration with the regional office
of biogas development program. The survey was intended to identify
the household level of satisfaction with the employed technology, the
bottlenecks observed during the operation of the plant and the level of
utilization of the by-product bio-slurry.
2.1. Biogas production system in Ethiopia
The household biogas production system in Ethiopia is the fixed
dome digester model, which is known as Indian model. The technology
was first introduced in 1962, constructed in Ambo school of agriculture
[22]. The household biogas model is widely spread in the countries
where a majority of the people live in rural areas like India (4 million)
and China (27 million) up to the year 2011 [23]. In Germany, there
were more than 7000 anaerobic farm scale digesters producing biogas
from different agricultural feedstock in 2013 and increased to 8200 in
2015, most of them of being fixed dome model [2]. A fixed dome di-
gester consists of a non-movable gasholder at the top and the digester at
the bottom. Due to the pressure and density difference within the di-
gester, the bio-slurry starts to leave the digester. The displaced bio-
slurry is directly applied to the agricultural field on a daily basis. The
moisture content (> 80%) of the bio-slurry makes it preferable to use
for cultivating vegetables all over the year. Additionally, the bio-slurry
contains useful nutrients for the growth of the vegetables, which re-
duces the requirement of chemical fertilizers as well.
In the biogas production system shown in Fig. 1, the cow dung
collected from the barn and the water brought from the nearby river/
ground water is mixed in the mixer manually by the household mem-
bers. In most of the household digesters, it takes about 30 min from the
river area and the digester is located near the barn as well as the family
house, so that the cow dung can easily be channeled to the digester
upon cleaning the barn. It is located near the house to minimize the cost
of piping as well as gas loss upon transfer. The produced biogas is
transferred by hose (plastic pipe) to the biogas stoves and biogas lamps
installed in the house. The gas is used when needed to cook, by oper-
ating the gas gate valve near the stove and light lump, replacing the
previously used fuels (cow dung, wood fuel and residues). The pro-
duced by-product (bio-slurry) displaces an equivalent amount (in terms
of nutrient content) of chemical fertilizer thereby reducing the
E.W. Gabisa and S.H. Gheewala
Fig. 1. Daily material flow and system diagram of biogas production in Amhara region for single 8 m3 digester.
associated emissions from its production and application, and the
produced biogas replaces an equivalent amount (in terms of energy
content) of biomass fuel along with the emissions from biomass com-
bustion.
2.2. Description of the study area
This study focuses on biogas development in the Amhara regional
state of Ethiopia. The state of Amhara is located in the northeast and
north central part of Ethiopia [Fig. 2]. The state shares a common
boundary with neighboring states: Oromia in the south, Afar in the east,
Beneshangul Gumuz in the southwest, Tigray in the north and Republic
of Sudan in the west. More than 85% of the population are engaged in
agriculture. The state is one of the major crop producers feeding the
region as well as the country at large. About 26% of the livestock po-
pulation of the country found in this region [24]. The topography of the
region is mainly subdivided into two parts basically, the highlands and
the lowlands. The mean annual temperature of the region in the ma-
jority of the areas lies between 15 and 21 °C [25]. The region receives
abundant amount of rainfall as high as 2000 mm per annum [26].
2.3. Theoretical biogas production potential
The theoretical potential of biogas production was determined fol-
lowing the method as laid down in biomass energy resource assessment
hand book [27] and later employed by Agabu and Gheewala in Zambia
[28], Jimenez and Hernendez in Mexico [29], Moreda in Uragay [30]
and Scarlat et al. [31] in Europe in general. The theoretical biogas
production from livestock waste was determined using Equation (1).
BP = NT × VS × Bo × CV × 365/106
−1
Where: BP is a theoretical biogas potential (TJ y ), NT is total
population of the livestock, VS is volatile solid part of the waste (kg
d−1), Bo is the methane potential of the livestock waste (m3 kg−1), and
CV is the caloric value of biogas assuming 60% methane composition
(MJ m−3).
In addition, the biogas potential from crop residue is determined
using the following equations:
R = CP × RPR
Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 446–456
RPR =
R
Y (3)
M = R × TS × VS × MP (4)
Where: R is the total available crop residue (tonnes), Cp is amount of
crop produced (t y−1), RPR is residue to yield ratio, Y is yield of product
(t ha−1 y−1), M is methane produced (m3 y−1), TS is total solid (%), VS
is volatile solid (%), MP is methane potential (m3 kg−1 VS).
2.4. Greenhouse gas emissions along the life cycle of biogas production
2.4.1. GHG emission from manure management in Amhara region
There are emissions to the environment along the life cycle of the
biogas digester development. Emissions which are mostly generated are
methane (from enteric fermentation, digestion leakage and manure
management system) and nitrous oxide (N2O) at each life cycle stage
[32]. The emissions are determined following the IPCC 2006, volume 4
chapter 10-guideline. Emissions from manure management and slurry
application were determined as follows. The data were sourced from
different scholarly articles as well national documents [33,34].
2.4.1.1. Methane emission. Methane is emitted at different stages of
biogas production. The first stage where the methane starts to be
emitted is during the natural process of digestion by the livestock,
which is called enteric fermentation followed by emissions during
manure management. The emission from enteric fermentation is not
considered here, since there is no way to improve/mitigate the emission
of natural metabolic process [5]. The emission during manure
management can be calculated using the following Equation (5).
(1) NT
CH4 = EF ×
106 (5)
Where: NT is the number of livestock (cattle) used for each digester in
the region, EF is emission factor, kg head−1 (IPCC default).
Secondly, methane can be emitted during the managing process of
the manure (biogas production process). In this case, since an anaerobic
digestion is designed as if the methane emission is totally avoided, only
leakage is considered as an emission. Moreover, the leakage was de-
(2) termined using the following Equation (6):
448
E.W. Gabisa and S.H. Gheewala Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 446–456

Fig. 2. Map of the study area: Amhara regional state of Ethiopia.

1 Annual average nitrogen excretion rates can be determined, Nex:

CH4 = CH4produced × 1
CE (6)
TAM
Nex = Nrate, T × × 365
Where: CH4 produced: annual biogas production per digester, m3 y−1 and 1000 (9)
CE: methane collection efficiency (0.975 for fixed dome) [35]. −1 −1
Nrate,T: default N excretion rate, kg N (1000 kg animal mass) d (
0.6 for cattle for Africa [22], TAM is typical animal mass for livestock
2.4.1.2. Nitrous oxide emission. The other emission is nitrous oxide, category T, kg animal −1.
which will be emitted during the management of manure directly or
indirectly. The direct emission of nitrous oxide from manure
2.4.2. GHG emissions from bioenergy resources consumed as a fuel (Non-
management is considered to be zero, assuming the emission factor
CO2)
for an anaerobic digester is zero [22]. Indirect emissions result from
The methodological approach as indicated in IPCC 2006, volume 2,
volatile nitrogen losses that occur primarily in the form of NH3 and
for stationary combustion is followed to determine the emissions as-
NOx. Therefore, the nitrogen losses due to volatilization from manure
sociated with the fuel consumed by the household before im-
management can be determined as (kg N y−1):
plementation of biogas [36]. The following formula was extracted from
[(NT × Nex × MSTS ) × FracGas ] the guideline and used to calculate the associated emission.
Nvolatalization =
S T
100 (7) EGHG, F = FCF × EFGHG . F (10)

Where: FracGas: Percent of managed manure nitrogen for livestock
category T those volatiles with NH3 and NOx, Nex: Annual average
nitrogen extraction per head of species/category T (kg N animal−1
y−1), MS TS: fraction of total annual nitrogen excretion for each
livestock species that is managed in anaerobic digestion system.
Finally, the indirect N2O emissions due to volatilization of N from
manure management can be determined with the following Equation
(8):
44
N2 O = (NVolatilization × EF ) ×
28
Where: EF: emission factor for N2O emission from atmospheric de-
position of nitrogen on soils and water surfaces, kg N2O-N (kg NH3-
N + NOx-N volatilized)−1, default value = 0.01 kg N2O-N (kgNH3-
Where: EGHG, F: the emission of given GHG by `type of fuel (kg GHG),
FCF: the amount of fuel combusted (TJ) and EF GHG, F: the default
emission factor of a given GHG by type of fuel (kg GHG TJ−1).
2.4.3. GHG emissions from chemical fertilizer production
Production of synthetic fertilizer emits pollutants as it consumes a
variety of raw materials such as ammonia, nitric acid, and phosphoric
acid. Each of the raw materials consumes a huge amount of fossil fuel,
which incur GHG emissions to the atmosphere. The emission from the
fertilizer production was estimated following Equation (11), which is
(8)
adopted from the international fertilizer industry association and other
published papers on the area [37,38].
n
GHGFP = Qi × PN , i × EFi × 10 6

N + NOx-N volatilized)−1 i=1 (11)

449
E.W. Gabisa and S.H. Gheewala
Table 1
Carbon emission factors and carbon oxidation rates of various biomass fuels.
Source [5,35,42].
Biomass type Carbon emission factor Carbon oxidation factor
Firewood 0.45 0.87
Dung 0.40 0.85
Residue 0.39 0.85
Where: GHG FP: greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer production
(Gg CO2eq y−1), Qi: quantity of fertilizer type i (kg y−1), PN,i: percen-
tage of nitrogen in fertilizer type i (%) and EFi: Emission factor of fer-
tilizer type i (kg CO2eq kg −1).
2.4.4. GHG emissions from fertilizer application to managed soil
Applying both chemical and organic fertilizer to soil results in
greenhouse gas emissions. The emission can be occurred through ni-
trification and de-nitrification process in the soil. The emissions can be
calculated by the following Equations (12) and (13) to determine both
direct and indirect N2O emissions:
44
N2 O = NT × EF1 × 10 6 ×
DE
12
Where: N2O DE: direct nitrous oxide emission from fertilizer application
(kg y−1), NT: consumption in nitrogen fertilizers (kg N input y−1), and
EF1: Emission factor for N2O emissions from N inputs (kg N2O- N kg−1
N input).
N2 O NIDE = [(FSN × FVol ) × EF4 + (FSN × Fleach) × EF5 ]
Where: N2O-NIDE: indirect N2O emissions produced from atmospheric
deposition of N, Fvol: fraction of applied N fertilizer materials that vo-
latilizes as NH3 and NOx (kg N volatilized kg of N applied−1), EF4:
emission factor for N2O emissions from atmospheric deposition of N on
soils and water surfaces, kg N2O-N (kg NH3-N + NOx-N volatilized) −1.
Fleach: fraction of applied synthetic N fertilizer materials that leaches as
NH3 and NOX (kg N leached kg−1 of N addition) and EF5: emission
factor for N2O emissions from N leaching and runoff (kg N2O-N kg−1
N).
2.4.5. Biogenic-CO2 emission from different biofuel combustion as a fuel
2.4.5.1. CO2 emission from biogas combustion. Biogas burns more
efficiently compared to crop residues, livestock dung and forest
residues burnt directly in an inefficient stove. Biogas burns at about
60% efficiency compared to firewood which has 5–8% efficiency when
burnt in an open fire place [33]. The quantity of CO2 emissions from
biogas are estimated according to formula used in Pei-dong et al. [35].
44
CFB = QBi × Ci × EFC ×
12
Where: CFB is CO2 emission from biogas consumption (tonne of CO2),
QBi is quantity of biogas consumed (m3), C is calorific value of biogas
per unit volume released (TJ m−3) and EFc is the carbon emission
factor for biogas (tonne TJ−1).
2.4.5.2. CO2 emission from direct burning of biomass as a fuel. Types of
fuels consumed as energy sources dictates the amount of CO2 emission
to the environment [39]. The CO2 emissions from burning of biomass
ends up in the process of photosynthesis during the growing of the
plant. Therefore, it has not been accounted in the greenhouse gas
emission, as they are biogenic. Biogenic CO2 emissions are CO2
emissions in relation to the naturally occurring carbon cycle as well
as the emissions from the processing of the bio-based materials,
including harvesting, digestion, and combustion and decomposing.
The emitted CO2 during these process is sequestered in the carbon
cycle [40]. Therefore, CO2 emitted do not increase the CO2 in the
atmosphere unlike CO2 emitted from fossil fuels and thus there will not
Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 446–456
be contribution to the global warming potential [41].
Emissions from direct burning of firewood, dung, and residue in
traditional manner can be calculated using Equation (15),
n
44
CEi = Qi × Ci × Oi ×
12 (15)
i 1
Where: CEi is the CO2 emissions from bioenergy resource i (tonne CO2),
Qi is the quantity of bioenergy resource i consumed (tonne), Ci is the
carbon emission factor of bioenergy type i and Oi is the carbon oxi-
dation rate of bioenergy type i (%). The carbon emission factors and
carbon oxidation rates presented in [Table 1].
2.4.5.3. CO2 emission reduction. Carbon dioxide emission reduction of
biogas is the difference between the CO2 emissions from burning of
biogas and direct burning of traditional biomass fuels such as wood,
dung and residues [35,42]. It is formulated as the following Equation
(16) considering the energy mix contribution from each fuel.
CO2, R = CO2, TB CO2, B (16)
Where: CO2, R: CO2 emission reduction when using biogas to replace the
(12)
energy mix, tonnes CO2 y−1, CO2, TB: CO2 emission from traditional
biomass fuel burning, tonnes CO2 y−1 and CO2, B: CO2 emission from
biogas burning, tonnes CO2 y−1.
2.4.6. Life cycle GHG emission reduction
(13) Greenhouse gas emissions reduction from biogas is the emission
reduced due to introducing biogas as a substitution biomass energy in
rural households along its life cycle. Upon replacing the biomass energy
sources it displaces the amount of chemical fertilizer consumed in the
farmland since the bio-slurry has the potential to substitute chemical
fertilizers. Therefore, the emissions from production of equivalent
amount (nutrient amount) of chemical fertilizers will be credited for the
biogas production in addition to the credit comes from the biomass
replacement. The biogenic-CO2 emission reduction is also included to
fully consider the emission reduction. Accordingly, it can be described
by the following Equation (17),
GHGred = G (HGFC + GHGCFP + GHGMM GHGL) + CO2, R (17)
Where: GHG red: Life cycle GHG emission reduction, tonne CO2eq y−1,
GHGFC: GHG emissions from biomass fuel combustion, tonne CO2eq
y−1, GHGMM: GHG emission from manure management, tonne CO2eq
y−1, GHGL: GHG emission by leakage during digestion, tonne CO2eq
y−1, and CO2, R: CO2 emission reduction when using biogas to replace
the energy mix, tonnes CO2 y−1.
(14)
2.5. Non-GHG emissions reduction due to biogas utilization
Since the fuels are consumed for cooking in the house it important
to address the other emissions which have a significant health effect on
the family members. Therefore, in this section the emission reduction
due to the replacement of the traditional fuels by biogas is determined
considering the World Health Organization (WHO) emission factors for
indoor biomass combustion. The major indoor pollutants indicated by
WHO are carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM10), and none
methane volatile organic compound (NMVOC). The following Equation
(18) is employed to determine the emission reductions of these pollu-
tants:
EPi = Ff × EFi (18)
Where: EPi: emission of pollutant i, kg-p y−1, Ff: amount of fuel f con-
sumed, kg y−1, and EFi: emission factor for pollutant i by type of fuel,
kg-p kg−1.
450
E.W. Gabisa and S.H. Gheewala
2.6. Organic fertilizer produced
The amount of organic fertilizer that can be produced from a di-
gester depends on the amount of methane that is produced, density of
methane and ratio of methane in the biogas according to following
formula (Equation (19)) by Ref. [28].
MCH 4
Qf =
CH 4 × RCH 4 × VB × Dp (19)
Where: Qf: the production rate of fertilizer (kgd−1), MCH4: the mass of
methane generated within a year (kgy−1), ρCH4: the density of methane
(kg m-3), RCH4: the ratio of methane in the biogas, VB: the biogas
generated from a unit mass of fertilizer (m3 kg−1 of fertilizer), and Dp:
the number of days per year of production.
2.7. Economic analysis
The development of biogas digester in the Africa region has not only
provide a renewable energy, but also benefits the household insuring
cleaner household environment, better disease control as well as job
creation and economic enhancement [2]. Different indicators are used
by different researchers to investigate the economic viability of the
rural household biogas projects. Most of the scholars used the well-
known economic terms to evaluate the system, such as benefit cost ratio
(BCR), net present value (NPV) and payback period (PBP) [4,43].
2.7.1. Benefit cost ratio (BCR)
Benefit cost ratio of a digester is used to determine whether the
project is cost effective or not. Benefit cost ratio greater than unity
shows that the project is economically viable. In addition to showing
the project profitability, it is also helpful to compare different projects
for the decision makers. The economic benefits derived from the re-
placement of traditional fuels with biogas are the cost savings from
replacement of the fuels with biogas. Additionally, the bio-slurry ob-
tained from the digester will have a potential of saving costs that could
be used to purchase chemical fertilizers. The cost incurred for the
biogas plant are initial investment cost, maintenance cost, and training
cost for the farmers and supervisors.
n Bn
t = 1 (1 + i)n
BCR = n Cn
t = 1 (1 + i)n (20)
Where: Bn - Benefit in each year (ETB) C - Cost in each year (ETB), i -
Interest rate, (%) and n- Number of years.
2.7.2. Net present value and payback period
Net present value (NPV) and payback period are widely used to
evaluate the economic feasibility of a project. NPV is used to determine
whether the project is gaining or losing; if the project ends up with
positive NPV at the end of the project life, it is economically viable
[44].
n
Rt
NPV =
(1 + i)t (21)
t=0
−1
Where Rt: net cash flow in year t (ETB y ) and n: project lifetime (y).
The other economic indicator used to determine the economic via-
bility of the project is payback period (PBP), which tells us how long it
will take to recover the initial investment cost.
Initial Investment
PBP =
Annual operation cash flow (22)
2.7.3. Women's opportunity cost of firewood collection and cooking on
efficient stoves
Opportunity cost is used to estimate the social benefit that is lost
451
Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 446–456
because of using firewood as opposed to using biogas, which is a
modern bioenergy. The extra time spent doing these activities (col-
lecting firewood and cooking) converted into monetary terms is the
opportunity cost, which is lost. If biogas was fully adopted, this cost
would be turned into a family income as the women will spend less time
on cooking and literally no time on firewood collection [45,46].
WOCf = WOC × ETf (23)
Where: WOCf: is the women's opportunity cost for collecting and
cooking using firewood (US$ d−1), WOC: is the women's opportunity
cost (US$ h−1), ETf is the extra time spent on collecting firewood and
cooking using inefficient stoves (hd−1).
The extra time allocated for fire firewood collection is considered to
be 11 h per week in average and women and children travel about 2 km
to collect the fuel [12]. The women's opportunity cost (WOC) and the
women's share on household income (WCHI) are estimated using the
following equations:
WCHI
WOC =
(24)
HL
WCHI = 0.52 × HI (25)
−1
Where HL is hours of labor (h y ) and HI is the household income
(ETB y−1).
In developing countries, the share of women in household income is
indicated as 52% [47]. The income per household in rural Amhara
region is extracted from Ethiopia rural social-economic survey (ERSS)
conducted by Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia in collaboration
with the World Bank [48].
3. Results and discussion
Gabisa and Gheewala [6] have estimated the theoretical potential
bioenergy production in Ethiopia to be 750 PJ per year from different
biomass residues. The study also indicates that these potential resources
are distributed to the different regions of the country, Oromia, Amhara
and SNNP regional states of the country, accounting for about 38%,
25%, and 22% respectively. In this study, it is intended to investigate
the potential of one type of bioenergy, which is biogas in more details
for specific region in the country, Amhara region. From the total op-
erational biogas-digesters in the region, about 1900 were surveyed and
considered as a representative for the 4500 digesters. In the survey, the
level of satisfaction of the households, bio-slurry utilization efficiency,
and the operational bottlenecks were included. About 230 (12%) re-
spondents were not satisfied with the technology and only 496 (∼26%)
respondents were using the bio-slurry on their farmlands. The reported
bottleneck problems were lack of commitment from the kebele level
trainers and the regional responsible sectoral office, in adequate level of
training on how to use the bio-slurry and hand on problem solving
techniques as it happens. The distance from the water source is also
reported as a problem. The average distance of water source considered
in the region to build the digester took about 30 min from the digester
[49].
During the survey, the households were asked about social benefits
gained from the biogas technology introduction as compared to their
previous experience. Their reply was that with the help of getting
awareness from the health extension advisors on the health impacts of
the traditional biomass utilization, the biogas technology provides a
significant health condition improvement. There are different cooking
types (Injera baking, wot making and coffee/tea making) in rural
households of the region based on the types of food to be cooked. Those
activities have impacts on the health and livelihood condition of the
households, which have different exposure time to the stove. The higher
the frequency of the exposure to the traditional cooking stove, the
higher the health impact. But, the introduction of biogas decreases this
exposure frequency since it replaces the traditional stove for cooking
E.W. Gabisa and S.H. Gheewala Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 446–456

Table 2 amount is 50% [58], which is about 108,689TJy−1 [6]. Having the
Theoretical biogas potential from livestock wastes in Amhara region. above information on the theoretical potential of biogas production in
Sources: Population [4] and VS and B0 [32]. the region, the actual biogas production is analyzed. Currently biogas is
Animal category Population VS (kgd−1) B0 (m3 kg−1) BP (TJy−1) produced only from cattle manure by using fixed dome anaerobic di-
gester. There are about 4500 operational household digester of volume
Cattle 15,980,000 2.67 0.2 120,000 8 m3 in average. Each household has four and above cattle which will
Goats 6,440,000 0.33 0.31 9240
provide around 60 kg on average per day. There are about 18,000 cattle
Sheep 10,740,000 0.30 0.31 14,000
Chickens 19,960,000 0.02 0.18 1000 and their manure is being used in the digester nowadays. In addition,
Humans 17,220,000 0.06 0.20 29,000 this is actually generating about 135TJy−1.
Total 173,240

3.2. GHG emission along the life cycle of biogas production

sauces and coffee/tea on traditional stoves. Eye irritation from the
smoke from traditional biomass utilization is almost avoided for all
cooking, except for Injera baking which requires higher temperatures
that cannot be provided by cooking with biogas. Injera baking is done
twice or thrice in a week, while the sauces (wot) making and coffee
making are daily activities. This reduction in contact time with tradi-
tional cooking stove also improves their livestyle. The other issue was
the issue of home sanitation. The cooking and baking is done in the
house, which means the ash and biomass storage in the house has a
significant influence on the house sanitation. The introduction of the
biogas has shown improvement in this regard as well. In general, the
household's response shows that they are satisfied with the technology
and suggested some improvement; such as proper training and stove
efficiency which can be options for future sector development.
The theoretical potential of biogas production from different bio-
mass residues, mainly livestock residue and crop residue was estimated
to be 223 PJ per year [Tables 2 and 3]. It is assumed that all the
available residues will be consumed for biogas generation. From the
total potential, livestock residue potential was estimated to be
173.24 PJ per year, the share of cattle is as high as 120 PJ per year
[Table 2]. From this theoretical potential, cattle dung is being used to
produce biogas in the region. Currently, there are about 4500 opera-
tional household biogas digesters in the Amhara regional state of the
country, providing about 0.14 PJ per year, which is 0.11% of the po-
tential from cattle manure and 0.058% from the total biogas potential.
The environmental consequences of using biomass in a traditional
way was also analyzed so that the benefit of biogas can be clearly seen.
Consuming biomass in traditional manner is responsible for different
emissions, directly or indirectly. The current consumption of these fuels
can generate about 4.53 Gg of CO2eq in Amhara regional states per year
(see Table 4).
3.1. Theoretical biogas production potential
In this section the theoretical potential of biogas from different
feedstock in the regional state of Amhara, which is the second largest
region in the country was determined.
The total theoretical potential of biogas production in the region
was estimated to be 217,377 TJ y−1, which could be generated from
8000 million m3 annually. From this total, the potentially recoverable
3.2.1. GHG emission from manure management
3.2.1.1. Methane emission. Methane emission from manure
management was determined by using Equation (5). The number of
cattle providing the required amount of manure to the 4500 digesters
were 22,500 and the IPCC default emission factor of 1 kg head−1 y−1
was considered. Accordingly, 22.5 tonnes of CH4 (562 tonnes of CO2eq)
could have been emitted per year per digester, which is now avoided by
managing the manure in biogas digester. The other source of methane
emission is during the biogas production phase in the form of leakage.
This is determined using Equation (6) and methane collection efficiency
of fixed dome digester of 0.975. The total amount of methane leaked
from the digester is estimated to be 252.7 tonnes of methane from the
4500 digesters.
3.2.1.2. Nitrous oxide emissions. As per Equation (7), default emission
factors of IPCC 2006 for specific manure management system for Africa
and the nitrogen excretion rate of scholarly published papers in
Zimbabwe [59] and Zambia [5] (0.63 kg N animal−1 yr−1), the N2O
emissions was estimated to be 1.23 kg per year, which is 366.54 kg
CO2eq per year. However, it is avoided by managing the manure in fixed
dome anaerobic digester for biogas generation.
3.2.2. CH4 and N2O emissions from bioenergy resources consumed as a fuel
Currently wood and cow dung are the major sources of energy in
rural households. The annual wood fuel consumption is about 91.2
million tonne from which 4.2 million tonne is in the form of charcoal.
Taking the average heating values of wood fuel as 14.5 GJ per tonne of
wood used as fuel, about 1.32 EJ of energy can be produced nationally
from wood fuel and 0.3 EJ in Amhara regional state per annum, which
is about 22.7% of the national consumption. Additionally, crop residues
and dung amounted 19.3 and 20.7 million tonnes respectively are
consumed for fuel annually. The total energy consumed from these two
feedstocks were 0.49 EJ nationally per year, while it was about 0.14 EJ
in Amhara regional state per year.
3.2.3. GHG emissions from chemical fertilizer production
Studies shows that on average GHG emissions per kg of N-fertilizer
produced is in the range of 3.3–3.63 kgCO2eq kg−1 [60]. As shown in
[Table 5], a total of 950GgCO2eq per year is emitted to produce the

Table 3
Theoretical biogas potential from crop residues in the Amhara regional states.
Source: Production [46], RPR [50–53] and TS, VS and MP [54–57].
Crop Production (million tonnes/y) RPR Residue (million tonnes/y) TS (%) VS (%) MP (m3 kg−1 VS) BP (TJ y−1)

Maize Stalk 1840 2.0 3680 74 82 0.28 14,400

Comb 0.3 600 30 94 0.60 2300
Wheat stalk 1200 1.0 1200 94 87 0.26 6000
Rice straw 130 1.75 230 94 87.2 0.27 1200
Sorghum straw 1400 1.75 2500 83 92 0.42 18,400
Barley straw 630 1.75 1000 60 50 0.20 1400
Sugar cane Bagasse 150 0.29 40 24 87 0.45 87
Top/leaves 0.32 50 90 98 0.33 350
Total 44,137

452
E.W. Gabisa and S.H. Gheewala Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 446–456

Table 4
GHG emissions from wood fuel, crop residue, and dung consumed as fuel at national level and Amhara regional state.
Biomass type Energy consumed, EJy−1 EF, kgCH4 EJ−1 EF, kgN2O EJ−1 CH4,Ggy−1 N2O,Ggy−1 CO2eq,
Ggy−1

Ethiopia Amhara Ethiopia Amhara Ethiopia Amhara Ethiopia Amhara

Wood fuel 1.32 0.3 0.3 0.004 0.4 0.09 0.0053 0.0012 11.56 2.6
Crop residue 0.29 0.054 0.3 0.0097 0.09 0.02 0.003 0.00052 3.14 0.65
Dung 0.25 0.086 0.28 0.027 0.07 0.024 0.007 0.0023 3.82 1.28
Total 0.56 0.134 0.0153 0.004 18.52 4.53

Table 5 3.2.5.3. Carbon dioxide emission reduction. A total of 6.8 million tonnes
Greenhouse gas emissions from chemical fertilizer production. of wood, 7.95 million tonnes of dung, and 5.15 million tonnes of
Fertilizer type Quantity, kg per year EF, kg CO2/kg of CO2eq, Ggy−1
residue have been consumed by 4500 households in the Amhara
fertilizer regional state of the country. Currently, the same households have
constructed 4500 household biogas digesters to fulfill their daily energy
Urea 290,080,000 1.85 537 demand for cooking and lighting. In other ways, the above amount of
DAP 469,793,000 0.87 409
biomass fuels are saved from being consumed as a fuel, which did not
Total 950
include the biomass consumed for injera baking as the biogas is not
been used yet. Nevertheless, upon replacing the fuel sources by biogas,
chemical fertilizer used in Amhara regional state. Even though the the emission from biogas is estimated to be 1.5 Gg per year from all the
consumption of diammonium phosphate (DAP) is much higher than biogas combustion produced from 4500 digesters. Consequently, a total
urea, the higher emission comes from urea since it has a high amount of amount of 24GgCO2 emissions is reduced by shifting from traditional
nitrogen (46%) as compared to DAP (10%). biomass burning to biogas technology per year.

3.2.4. Greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer application to managed soil
Currently, the bio-slurry produced from the household biogas di-
gesters is used on agricultural farm areas as a fertilizer. As a result, an
equivalent amount of emissions from chemical fertilizer application has
been avoided as indicated in [Table 6]. Taking the nitrogen content of
the bio-slurry as 10% [22], the net GHG emission from fertilizer ap-
plication was estimated to be 967 Gg CO2eq yr−1. Since the nitrogen
content of bio-slurry and DAP is equivalent, the bio-slurry will displace
an equivalent amount of DAP there by the associated emission as well,
which is 14.4GgCO2eq per year.
3.2.5. Carbon dioxide emission from bio-energy sources
3.2.5.1. Carbon dioxide emission from biogas combustion. Considering
density of biogas as 1.15 kg m−3 [54], calorific value of biogas (60%
methane content) is 20 MJ m−3 [5] and carbon emission factor for
biogas 15.3 tonne/TJ [38]. The biogas consumption per day per
household is considered to be 4 m3 (∼22 kWh) [61], accordingly
each household emits 0.33 tonnes of CO2 per annum. Therefore, the
current operational 4500-biogas digesters have a potential of emitting
1.5GgCO2 per year.
3.2.5.2. Carbon dioxide emission from direct burning of biomass as a
fuel. Taking the consumed amount of each type of fuel and using
Equation (12), and the carbon emission factor of 0.45, 0.4, and 0.39 for
wood, dung, and residue respectively [Table 1], the carbon dioxide
emission of 9.3 Gg, 10 Gg, and 6.26 Gg was supposed to be emitted from
wood, dung, and residue respectively. This total amount of emission is
calculated considering the proportion of biomass fuels replaced by the
biogas generated from 4500 digesters.
3.2.6. Life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction
The avoided emission due to the implementation of biogas tech-
nology in the Amhara regional state is calculated using Equation (14).
The estimation was based on the amount of fuel displaced; chemical
fertilizer displaced, and manure management. The methane emitted
during anaerobic digestion as a leakage is not credited; rather it is
subtracted as emission from the system. From the present 4500-digester
implementation, about 1984 tonnesCO2eq is reduced per annum.
Manure management (> 80%) contributes highly to the emission re-
duction followed by chemical fertilizer displacement and biomass fuel
substitution.
3.3. Non-GHG emission reduction from biomass fuel consumption
In Amhara regional state after harvesting the crops, the residues are
collected for further utilization as a fuel for cooking. In the case of
dung, after collecting it is allowed to dry in the sun for later utilization
as a fuel. The utilization of fuel depends on the season, during the
harvesting the farmers prefer to use the residue, as it is available easily
on their farm field. During the rainy season, wood and cow dung, which
have been stored during the sunny season, are used. In any of the cases,
they use that fuel in open burning three stone stove system. While
burning the fuels there are certain emissions in addition to GHG
emissions which are calculated by using the WHO emission factors for
indoor biomass fuel burning [62]. The calculations are based on the
current fuel mix in the region (40% wood, 30% dung, and 30% re-
sidue). After the total energy obtained from biogas-digester, the
equivalent amount of those fuels are determined and the calculated
emissions are considered as avoided emission due to the replacement by

Table 6
Direct and Indirect N2O emissions from chemical and organic fertilizer application.
Fertilizer Quantity (kgy−1) Direct N2O (kgy−1) Indirect N2O (kgy−1 CO2eq(Ggy−1)

Urea 290,080,000 290,080 942,760 363.7

DAP (Di-Ammonium phosphate) 469,793,000 469,793 1,526,827 589.0
Organic fertilizer (digestate) 19,500,000 19,500 29,250 14.4
Total 779,373 2,498,837 967.1

453
E.W. Gabisa and S.H. Gheewala Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 446–456

Table 7 Table 8
Total non-GHG emissions reductions from the existing 4500 digesters. Cost benefit analysis of household biogas plants.
Fuel type Amount (tonne) Emissions (t/y) Biogas Digester

CO NMOC PM10 6 m3 8 m3

Fuel wood 6480 337.5 55.08 10.8 Cost

Dung 7952 342 ____ 19.4 Investment cost 13454 14945
Residue 5148 837 53.01 10.8 Maintenance cost 1300 1300
Total 1516.5 108.1 41 Training cost 1000 1000
Total cost 15,754 17,245
Benefit
From fuel replacement 6026 7231
biogas. Accordingly, the energy obtained from the biogas digester was
Bio-slurry as a N- fertilizer replacement 22680 27216
estimated to be 64.8 GJ per year per digester, which could have been Total Benefit 28706 34447
obtained from 1440 kg of wood, 1767 kg of dung, and 1144 kg of re- Benefit cost ratio (BCR) 1.8 2
sidues. Net present value (NPV) 12952 17202
The following [Table 7] shows the total non-GHG emission reduc- PBP (year) 2.15 2.38

tion by replacing biogas for cooking application for the existing op-
Note: All the units of costs and benefits are in Ethiopian birr (ETB). The con-
erational 4500 digesters. The replacement for the lighting was not
version rate of currency in the year 2018 is considered (1USD∼28 ETB). An
considered, as the use of kerosene in the region is very small (2 L/ interest rate of 4% was assumed for the calculation.
month/household).
Therefore, the current biogas digesters able to reduce 1516.5tonne
of CO, 108.1tonne of NMOC, and 41tonnes of PM10 that could have
and 22 of working days per month is assumed. Besides the socio-
been emitted upon using biomass directly as a fuel.
economic benefit of biogas, it also contributes to the improvement of
household living standard as well as increases agricultural develop-
3.4. Economic analysis
ment.

3.4.1. Benefit-cost analysis

An 8 m3 biogas plant has a potential to replace 1440 kg of wood
fuel, 1767 kg of cow dung, and 1140 kg of residue considering the en-
ergy mix of the rural area of Amhara region in a year. Considering, the
average consumption of energy sources in the region, biogas has a
potential to replace fully the current fuel consumption of the rural
household. However, practically it is difficult to use biogas for all the
energy-consuming applications. For instance, injera, the staple food,
baking with the present biogas technology is still challenging because it
requires a high temperature with a very less heat flow. With the present
technology, it is difficult to achieve the required temperature with an
equivalent amount of biogas energy. Above 60% of household energy in
Ethiopia is consumed for injera making [12]. The study in the Meskan
(Amhara region) and Ada (Oromia region), shows that 46% of firewood
and 70% of cow dung is consumed for injera baking from the total
energy source consumed in a year [63]. Because of this nature of the
energy intensiveness of injera baking, people prefer to use firewood
widely [41].
Therefore, assuming biogas is consumed for cooking purpose, which
accounts about 40% of energy consumption. The net present value of 8-
m3 shows a slightly better benefit-cost performance than the 6-m3
biogas digester considering 20 years life of the constructed digester.
Conversely, the 6-m3 biogas digester shows a slightly lower payback
period [Table 8]. However, the construction of biogas plant depends on
the possession of required number of cows to provide the required
amount of manure and the water availability. Therefore, the choice of
the digester size depending on the economic benefit is not relevant for
the case of household biogas plant construction in the region as well as
the country as large. The utilization of the bio-slurry as a fertilizer
contributes a greater benefit than the substituted fuel.
3.4.2. Women's opportunity cost
As per the formula indicated in the methodology section for the
calculation of women's opportunity cost of fire wood collection was
estimated to be 0.28US$ per hour per household per digester. The es-
tablished biogas digester can save 1162 US $ (694 US$ (wood), 284 US$
(dung) and 184 US$ (crop residue)) per year by substituting the tra-
ditional biomass fuels with the produced biogas. The average household
income in rural area of Amhara region is about 160 US$ per month
(HCE 2016 statistical report Amhara). Eight hours of working per day
3.4.3. Net energy balance
As far as the energy balance is concerned, since there is no energy
input to the production process of the biogas, the output energy is
considered as the net energy gain. Therefore, about 64 GJ per year per
digester is the total energy gain from the single digester.
4. Conclusions and recommendations
4.1. Conclusions
A total of 1968 tonnes of CO2eq non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions
per year were estimated from livestock manure management, fertilizer
production and biomass fuel burning from the current 4500 operational
biogas digesters. Manure management has a great share of emission
followed by fertilizer production and biomass burning. The improper
management (the current practice of applying directly the manure) of
cow manure is responsible for the emission of about 12,049GgCO2eq,
which could have been used for production of biogas. The employment
of biogas technology in the region avoids (reduce) this amount of
greenhouse gas emissions. Fully exploiting the available potential from
cow dung manure only, will reduce about 12TgCO2eq per annum. It also
reduces the amount of fuel wood consumption thereby reducing de-
forestation significantly. Biogas produced by the current 4500 digesters
reduces 6580 tonnes of wood fuel, 7952 tonnes of dung, and 5148
tonnes of crop residue per year. It is also concluded that the exploitation
of all the available potential from cow manure can only satisfy the daily
energy demand of the regional household through strategic manage-
ment of the sector.
From the current operational biogas digesters about 10,500 tonnes
of organic fertilizer is being produced, while the implementation of the
available potential will result in the production of 7,457,000 tonnes of
bio-fertilizer, which could substitute more than 15% of the current DAP
consumption. Additionally, the moisture content of the fertilizer along
the nutrient content will enhance the farmland fertility and nutrient
retention. It can also reduce the emission associated with the equivalent
amount of chemical fertilizer production. Since biogas is used as indoor
cooking fuel, it replaces the fuel consumed for indoor cooking as well as
lighting. The combustion of biomass fuels (wood, dung and crop re-
sidue) in open three stone stove system emits a significant amount of

454
E.W. Gabisa and S.H. Gheewala
toxic pollutants like CO, NMOC, and PM10. The introduction of biogas
as a fuel for indoor application therefore reduces those pollutant
emissions and their consequence on health of the family members.
Thus, biogas from the operational biogas digesters (4500) avoids 1517
tonnes of CO, 108 tonnes of NMOC and 41 tonnes of PM10 per year. This
will reduce the chronic diseases from inhaling those pollutants.
The socio–economic aspects of the biogas in Amhara regional state
are also addressed in this study. Net present value, benefit cost ratio and
payback period of the biogas system have been analyzed. Accordingly,
the biogas digester shows a promising economic benefit in the very best
case. The benefit cost ratio greater than unity and the shorter payback
period shows the sector development as attractive and promising. The
women's opportunity cost due to the biogas introduction is estimated to
be 0.28 US$ per hour per household, which is about 1250US$ per hour
for the 4500 biogas digester households. The exhaustive utilization of
the available cow manure potential will result in women's opportunity
cost of about 890,300 US$ per annum.
4.2. Recommendations
There should be a comprehensive assessment to identify the prac-
tical applicability of crop residue for biogas production in the region, as
there is a huge amount of the residue in the region. Developing a fra-
mework for the assessment and associated emissions in the region has
to be conducted in order to identify the proper implementation of
biogas production from the residue in the sector in addition to the cow
manure. The framework needs to address the other available potential
residues from different livestock as well. After the methodological fra-
mework development to assess the associated emissions from the
available resources, database should be developed for both available
resources and emissions. Doing so will help the academia, political
leaders, regionally authority planners and other stakeholders to have
access to draw a political decisions and scientific analysis easily.
There is a need to diversify the energy mix of the region as well as
the country to insure the energy security of the society. This can be
achieved by expanding the biogas production as well as scaling up the
digester to commercial level so that there will be a centralized biogas
production for certain small villages. This could also help share the
capital investment cost among the society in the village and will also
ease electricity production from the system as there will be enough
amount of gas. Upgrading of the gas to bio methane needs compre-
hensive laboratory experiments to improve the sector development. The
produced bio methane then will be used in city transportation as it is in
some countries like Brazil. The by-product bio-slurry needs to be ana-
lyzed for the nutrient content so that proper chemical fertilizer plan-
ning will be performed. It is also very important to pack and label the
organic fertilizer (bio-slurry) to penetrate the market easily. This can
increase the income of the household in addition to reducing the cost of
chemical fertilizer purchasing.
The current practice of the sector needs to be readdressed in the way
that maximum benefit would be assured in a sustainable way. Providing
cash incentives and subsidies to the household is not a sustainable way
of supporting the sector. There should be a sustainable way of sup-
porting the owner of the plant throughout the life of the digester like
employing clean development mechanism, feed in tariff and so on. The
former and present effort of the government through national and re-
gional biogas program have not yielded a satisfactory result on the
sector. Some of the factors that hinder biogas technology dissemination
are policies, institutional frameworks, consumer awareness, and non-
involvement of stakeholders, and lack of access to carbon development
mechanism funds. Biogas technology dissemination must be looked into
with renewed interest if the region as well as country has to benefit
from the sector. Private sector involvement must be established, de-
veloped, and maintained in biogas promotion and production in the
way that successful countries have been doing.
455
Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 446–456
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to gratefully thank King Mongkut's
University of Technology Thonburi for financial support from Petchra
Pra Jom Klao Research Scholarship and also the Joint Graduate School
of Energy and Environment (JGSEE), King Mongkut's University of
Technology Thonburi.
References
[1] S. Geissler, D. Hagauer, A. Horst, M. Krause, P. Sutcliffe, Biomass Energy Strategy:
Ethiopia, (2013).
[2] D. Styles, J. Gibbons, A.P. Williams, Cattle feed or bioenergy ? Consequential life
cycle assessment of biogas feedstock options on dairy farms, GCB Bioenergy 7
(2015) 1034–1049.
[3] G. Eshete, C. Stoop, National Biogas Programme, Ethiopia: Biogas for Better Life.
Brief Programme Profile, (2007).
[4] D. Naimah, Sustainability Assessment of Small Scale Biogas Production Using
Livestock Manures in Yogyakarta Province , Indonesia (Master Thesis), (2017).
[5] A. Shane, S.H. Gheewala, Missed environmental benefits of biogas production in
Zambia, J. Clean. Prod. 142 (2017) 1200–1209.
[6] E. Wagari, S.H. Gheewala, Potential of bio-energy production in Ethiopia based on
available biomass residues, Biomass Bioenergy 111 (2018) 77–87.
[7] IRENA, Biogas for Domestic Cooking, Technology Brief, (2017).
[8] M. Sapp, State of Biogas in the World, Clean energy solutions center, 2017.
[9] J. Hou, W. Zhang, P. Wang, Z. Dou, L. Gao, D. Styles, Greenhouse gas mitigation of
rural household biogas systems in China : a life cycle assessment, Energies 239
(2017) 1–14.
[10] C.B. Wang, L.X. Zhang, Procedia of Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Carbon
Emission from a Household Biogas Digester : Implications for Policy vol. 8, (2012).
[11] V.T.K. Vu, Q.D. Vu, L.S. Jensen, S.G. Sommer, Life Cycle assessment of biogas
production in small-scale household digesters in Vietnam, Asian-Australas. J. Anim.
Sci. 28 (2015) 716–729.
[12] S.G. Gwavuya, S. Abele, I. Barfuss, M. Zeller, J. Müller, Household energy eco-
nomics in rural Ethiopia: a cost-benefit analysis of biogas energy, Renew. Energy 48
(2012) 202–209.
[13] D. Negash, Household Energy and Recycling of Nutrients and Carbon to the Soil in
Integrated Crop-Livestock Farming Systems : a Case Study in Kumbursa Village ,
Central Highlands of Ethiopia, (2017), pp. 1588–1601.
[14] N. Abadi, K. Gebrehiwot, A. Techane, H. Nerea, Links between biogas technology
adoption and health status of households in rural Tigray , Northern Ethiopia,
Energy Policy 101 (2017) 284–292.
[15] H. Etsay, K. Meles, G. Hailu, K. Hintsa, Determinants for adoption decision of small
scale biogas technology by rural households in Tigray, Ethiopia, Energy Econ. 66
(2017) 272–278.
[16] M.G. Mengistu, B. Simane, G. Eshete, T.S. Workneh, The environmental benefits of
domestic biogas technology in rural Ethiopia, Biomass Bioenergy 90 (2016)
131–138.
[17] Z.Y. Amare, The role of biogas energy production and use in greenhouse gas
emission reduction , the case of Amhara National Regional State 1 (2014) 404–410.
[18] J. Lansche, J. Müller, Life cycle assessment (LCA) of biogas versus dung combustion
household cooking systems in developing countries – a case study in Ethiopia, J.
Clean. Prod. 165 (2017) 828–835.
[19] SO 2006, EN 14040-Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment -
Principles and Framework, (2006).
[20] ISO 2006, EN 14044:Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-
Requirements and Guide Line, (2006).
[21] UNDP, Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,
(2015).
[22] T.A. Seadi, D. Rutz, H. Prassl, M. Köttner, T. Finsterwalder, S. Volk, R. Janssen,
Biogas Handbook, University of Southern Denmark Esbjerg, Niels Bohrs Vej 9-10,
DK-6700 Esbjerg, Denmark, (2008).
[23] T. Bond, M.R. Templeton, History and future of domestic biogas plants in the de-
veloping world, Energy Sustain. Dev. 15 (2011) 347–354.
[24] H. Tilahun, E. Schmidt, Spatial Analysis of Livestock Production Patterns in
Ethiopia, (2012).
[25] A. Abiyu, D. Batsuren, Innovative Trend Analysis of Annual and Seasonal Rainfall
Variability in Amhara Regional, Atmosphere (Basel), (2018).
[26] W. Bewket, Rainfall variability and crop production in Ethiopia: case study in the
Amhara region, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of Ethiopian
Studies, 2009, pp. 823–836.
[27] S. MAITHEL, Biomass Energy Resource Assessment Handbook, Asian and Pacific
Centre for Transfer of Technology, 2009.
[28] A. Shane, S.H. Gheewala, G. Kasali, Potential, barriers and prospects of biogas
production in Zambia, J. Sustain. Energy Environ. 6 (2015) 21–27.
[29] S.C.H., L.D. Jimenez, The potential for biogas production from agriculture wastes in
Mexico, Intech Open 2 (2018) 64.
[30] I.L. Moreda, The potential of biogas production in Uruguay, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 54 (2016) 1580–1591.
[31] N. Scarlat, F. Fahl, J.F. Dallemand, F. Monforti, V. Motola, A spatial analysis of
biogas potential from manure in Europe, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 94 (2018)
915–930.
[32] K.R. Cecile De Klein, Rafael S.A. Novoa, Ogle Stephen, Keith A. Smith,
E.W. Gabisa and S.H. Gheewala
Philippe Rochette, Thomas C. Wirth, Brian G. McConkey, Arvin Mosier, N2O
emissions from managed soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application,
in: M.W., S.A. Williams (Eds.), IPCC Guidel. Natl. Greenh. Gas Invent, vol. 4, Agric,
2006.
[33] M.G. Mengistu, B. Simane, G. Eshete, T.S. Workneh, A review on biogas technology
and its contributions to sustainable rural livelihood in Ethiopia, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 48 (2015) 306–316.
[34] I. Barfuss, S. Gwavuya, S. Abele, J. Müller, Biogas production vs. dung combustion
as household energy in rural Ethiopia, Proc. CIGR Int. Symp. “Sustainable Bioprod. -
Water, Energy Food,”, 2011, pp. 1–8.
[35] T. Feng, S. Cheng, Q. Min, W. Li, Productive use of bioenergy for rural household in
ecological fragile area, Panam County, Tibet in China: the case of the residential
biogas model, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (2009) 2070–2078.
[36] Amit Garg, Tinus Pulles, Chapter 2: stationary combustion, in: A.J., F.T. Ian
Carruthers (Eds.), 2006 IPCC Guidel. Natl. Greenh. Gas Invent. 2006, pp. 1–47.
[37] M. Marinussen, H. Van Kernebeek, R. Broekema, E. Groen, A. Kool, W.J. Van Zeist,
M. Dolman, H. Blonk, B. Consultants, LCI Data for the Calculation Tool Feedprint
for Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Feed Production and Utilization Cultivation Oil
Seeds and Oil Fruits, (2012).
[38] J. Bellarby, B. Foereid, A.F.S.J. Hastings, P. Smith, Cool Farming : climate impacts
of agriculture and mitigation potential, Greenpeace Int (2008) 44.
[39] J.F.S. Junior, W. Bank, Industrial Processing Integration of Alcohol and Sugar
Production, Cogeneration of Electricity, Elsevier, 2017.
[40] USEPA, Framework for Assessing Biogenic CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources,
(2014).
[41] USEPA, Accounting Framework for Biogenic CO2 Emissions from Stationary
Sources, (2011).
[42] Z. Pei-dong, J. Guomei, W. Gang, Contribution to emission reduction of CO2 and
SO2 by household biogas construction in rural China, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
11 (2007) 1903–1912.
[43] T. Abbas, G. Ali, S.A. Adil, M.K. Bashir, M.A. Kamran, Economic analysis of biogas
adoption technology by rural farmers: the case of Faisalabad district in Pakistan,
Renew. Energy 107 (2017) 431–439.
[44] P.J. Jørgensen, Biogas - Green Energy, second ed., Faculty of Agricultural Sciences,
Aarhus University, 2009.
[45] SNV and MWIE, SINIDU 2008 Bio-Digester Construction Manual, (2016).
[46] M. Kanagawa, T. Nakata, Analysis of the energy access improvement and its socio-
economic impacts in rural areas of developing countries, Ecol. Econ. 62 (2007)
319–329.
456
Biomass and Bioenergy 122 (2019) 446–456
[47] S. Jahan, E. Jespersen, Human Development Report 2015, Work for Human
Development, 2015.
[48] Central Statistical Agency, World Bank, Ethiopia Rural Socioeconomic Survey
(ERSS) Survey Report, (2013), pp. 1–64.
[49] L.M. Kamp, E. Bermúdez Forn, Ethiopia's emerging domestic biogas sector: current
status, bottlenecks and drivers, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 60 (2016) 475–488.
[50] M.H. Duku, S. Gu, E. Ben Hagan, A comprehensive review of biomass resources and
biofuels potential in Ghana, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (2011) 404–415.
[51] Auke Koopmans, Jaap Koppejan, Agricultural and Forest Residues Generation,
Utilization and Availability, Biomass, 1998, pp. 6–10.
[52] C. Cooper, C. Laing, A macro analysis of crop residue and animal wastes as a po-
tential energy source in Africa, J. Energy South Afr. 18 (2007) 10–19.
[53] R. Lal, World crop residues production and implications of its use as a biofuel,
Environ. Int. 31 (2005) 575–584.
[54] Y. He, Y. Pang, Y. Liu, X. Li, K. Wang, Physicochemical characterization of rice
straw pretreated with sodium hydroxide in the solid state for enhancing biogas
production, Energy Fuels 22 (2008) 2775–2781.
[55] P.P.B. Odhner, I.S. Horvath, M.M. Kabir, A. Schabbauer, Biogas from
Lignocellulosic Biomass, Svenskt Gastekniskt Center, 2012, pp. 1–55.
[56] G. Esposito, L. Frunzo, A. Giordano, F. Liotta, A. Panico, F. Pirozzi, Anaerobic co-
digestion of organic wastes, Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 11 (2012) 325–341.
[57] S.S. Msibi, G. Kornelius, Potential for domestic biogas as household energy supply
in South Africa, J. Energy South Afr. 28 (2017) 1–13.
[58] F. Rosillo-Calle, P. de Groot, S.L. Hemstock, J. Woods (Eds.), The Biomass
Assessment Handbook. Energy for a Sustainable Environment, second ed.,
Routledge, Nilton park, Abingdonand New York, 2015.
[59] R.M. Jingura, R. Matengaifa, Optimization of biogas production by anaerobic di-
gestion for sustainable energy development in Zimbabwe, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 13 (2009) 1116–1120.
[60] L.X. Zhang, C.B. Wang, Z.F. Yang, B. Chen, Carbon emissions from energy com-
bustion in rural China, Procedia Environ. Sci. 2 (2010) 980–989.
[61] E.W. Gabisa, A. Aman, Characterization and experimental investigation of NaNO3 :
KNO3 as solar thermal energy storage for potential cooking application, J. Sol.
Energy 1 (2016) 1–7.
[62] S. Karnani, E.M. Fisher, M. Johnson, L. Naeher, R. Kirk, L. Morawska, WHO Indoor
air quality guidelines : household fuel combustion, Review 2 : Emissions of Health-
Damaging Pollutants from Household Stoves, WHO, 2014, pp. 1–42.
[63] Y. Mulugetta, Energy in rural Ethiopia: consumption patterns, associated problems,
and prospects for a sustainable energy strategy, Energy Sources 21 (1999) 527–539.