Assessment of Biogas Potentials from

Organic Waste in Keffi Nasarawa State

Nigeria

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Biogas production from waste is not a new technology; historical evidence indicates that

Anaerobic Digestion (AD) is one of the oldest technologies. Even around 3000 BC the

Sumerians practiced anaerobic cleansing of waste (Deublein and Steinhauser, 2008). However,

the industrialization of anaerobic digestion began in 1859 with first AD plant sited in Bombay

India (Khanal, 2008). According to Deublein and Steinhauser (2008), other countries that

pioneered the evolution of biogas technology were France, China and Germany. China is

recently, credited as having the largest biogas programme in the world with over 20 million

biogas plants installed (Tatlidil et al., 2009).

Biogas technology was introduced in Africa between 1930 and1940 when Ducellier and Isman

started building simple biogas machines in Algeria to supply farm houses with energy. Despite

this early start in Africa the development of large scale biogas technology is still in its embryonic

stage in this region, though with a lot of potentials (Deublein and Steinhauser, 2008).

The earliest record of biogas technology in Nigeria was in the 80s when a simple biogas plant

that could produce 425 litres of biogas per day was built at Usman Danfodiyo University, Sokoto
(Dangogo and Fernado, 1986). About 21 pilot demonstration plants with a capacity range of

between 10m3 and 20m3 have been sited in different parts of Nigeria (Achara, Nsukka LGA,

Enugu State, Ifelodun farmer’s cooperative at Ojokoro, Agege lagos, ANAPRI, Zaria,Kaduna

State, Kano, Yobe, Kebbi States, etc) and none is functional (Ani, 2014). However, presently

efforts are being made by individuals, companies to reinstate biogas production in Nigeria.

Experimentation of biogas production is ongoing in some States like Akwa Ibom, Niger, Lagos

and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Abuja. But countries like India, United States, Pakistan

and China have actualized this idea and are still thriving well (John and Twidell, 2007; Tyagi,

2009).

Biogas technology is an alternative energy source which utilizes various organic wastes in order

to produce Biogas (cooking, heating and lighting), mineralized water and organic fertilizers. So,

in the face of ongoing population growth, increasing rate of deforestation for fuel wood and

growing demerits of fossil fuels, their finitude and unsustainability, biogas energy is becoming a

favoured emerging alternative as it combat climate change, convert waste to energy and reduce

the volume of waste that ends in landfills. Energy supply and waste management are crucial to

the wellness of humans and to a country's economic development. Organic waste could be

fermented by anaerobic bacteria to produce a very versatile and cheap fuel (biogas) which can be

utilized as fuel for small-scale industries, household cooking energy etc. Biogas production has

diverse benefit economically it create wealth, job and energy, environmentally it is friendly as it

reduce volume of waste. The solution to cooking energy should not be fossil fuel and fuel wood

which are not renewable and unfriendly to the natural environment and that of organic waste

should not be disposal rather it should be seen as a resource by way of energy recovery, it should

be converted to energy (biogas).

Biogas production from organic waste has dual functions; it produces energy and organic

fertilizer and at the same time reduces waste volume. Biogas technology has an important role to

play in meeting the present and future energy needs in both rural and urban areas (Abila, 2012).

The development and utilization of renewable energy should be given a high priority, especially

in the light of increased awareness of the adverse environmental impacts of fossil-based

generation. The need for sustainable energy is rapidly increasing in the world. A widespread use

of renewable energy is important for achieving sustainability in the energy sectors in both

developing and industrialized countries.

Energy services are essential ingredients of all three pillars of sustainable development -

economic, social, and environmental. Economies that have replaced human and animal labour

with more convenient and efficient sources of energy and technology are also the ones that have

grown fastest. No country in modern times has succeeded in substantially reducing poverty

without adequately increasing the provision and use of energy to make material progress

(Ragauskas et al., 2006). Indeed, by not ensuring a minimum access to energy services for a

broad segment of the population, economic development of developing countries such as Nigeria

beyond the level of subsistence has proven to be a real challenge.

Thus, currently, there are moves within government agencies to make biogas more popular as a

way of providing energy for cooking and organic fertilizer for farming (Onuh, 2017). This is

because production of biogas from organic waste is a tool for sustainable development. Keffi

Local Government of Nasarawa State, Nigeria is typical region in Nigeria that is being

confronted by poor waste management and energy deficiency due to rapid population growth
resulting from FCT urban sprawl. Thus, there is need to assess the potential of converting

organic waste to energy (biogas) in Keffi Local Government of Nasarawa State, Nigeria.

1.2 Statement of the Research Problem

It has been estimated that about 80% of Nigerian households living in the rural and urban areas

use wood fuel and charcoal for cooking and heating(Sambo et al., 2006; IEA, 2012). This

practice is unhealthy and unsustainable. The need for sustainable energy is rapidly increasing in

the world. A widespread use of renewable energy is important for achieving sustainability in the

energy sectors in both developing and industrialized countries. Thus, several researches

(Onyebuchi, 1989; Duggirala, 2010; Lawal, 2010; Florin, 2013; Kofi-Opata, 2013) have been

carried out on renewable energy as alternative to fossil fuel and fuel wood which are both non-

renewable and unsustainable. Biogas is one of the major renewable energy sources that have

attracted the attention of researchers and it has been reported that production of biogas is

sustainable, renewable, carbon neutral and reduces the dependency on fossil fuels and fire wood

(Abila, 2012).

Studies showed that biogas applications offer social, environmental, health and economic

benefits, for instance, Ani (2014) explained that Biogas production has diverse benefit

economically it create wealth, job and energy, environmentally it is friendly as it reduce volume

of waste, does not produce or reduce carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; it reduce the need for

fossil fuel, fuel wood and charcoal. Health wise, it is a clean energy and does not pollute the

environment to cause diseases. Similarly, Anthony and Wilson (2009) noted that biogas

production would reduce the use of fossil-fuel-derived energy and reduce environmental impact,

including global warming and pollution, improve sanitation, reduce demand for wood and

charcoal for cooking and provide a high quality organic fertiliser. Biogas technology can serve as
a means to overcome energy poverty, which poses a constant barrier to economic development in

Africa. Biogas production from agricultural residues, industrial, and municipal waste (water)

does not compete for land, water and fertilizers with food crops like is the case with bioethanol

and biodiesel production. “Biogas is utilised worldwide to redress fluctuating energy demand,

produce fertiliser, cooking gas and biofuels. It also helps to mitigate deforestation; greenhouse

gas (GHG), emissions and other environmental concerns associated with non-sustainable waste

disposal and management practices” (The Nation, September 21, 2017).

Moreover, biogas feed stocks have been identified to include wastes and by-products of plants

agricultural residues after harvest and processing which include vegetable wastes, wastes from

food processing industries, paper, kitchen wastes, crop stalks e.t.c. Farmyard wastes, livestock

wastes and human wastes including poultry, piggery, rams, sheep, goats, grass cutters, rabbits

and cow wastes. Cassava peels and leaves, palm fibers and remnants that are usually burnt

(Akinbami et al, 2001; Hussaina, 2002; Florin, 2013; Ani,2014). Akinbami et al(2001) indicated

that the identified feedstock substrate for an economically feasible biogas program in Nigeria

includes water lettuce, water hyacinth, dung, cassava leaves, urban refuse, solid (including

industrial) waste, agricultural residues, and sewage.

In terms of application areas of biogas Akinbami et al (2001) outlined application areas of biogas

as follows: energy for agro-processing industries, households, institutions, abattoirs waste

management, hotels and eateries and for water hyacinth control. In countries like China that are

believed to have millions of domestic biogas digesters, they have helped reduce deforestation

due to firewood use, and also improved the sanitary conditions of rural areas, and improved the

quality of life of many families which uses it (ISIS, 2006). This can be said for many other

developing countries which all aim to use biogas production to achieve many of the same goals
China achieved with its biogas use. However, Nigeria is yet to tap from this technology that

generate energy from waste despite that investment into clean energy facilities is recognized as

the best way to increase the participation of Nigerian proponents in the Clean Development

Mechanisms (CDM) process and hence the global carbon market (Oyedepo, 2012). This study in

a bit to bridge this gap and advocate biogas production from waste intends to assess biogas

potentials from organic waste in Keffi LGA. In order to encourage displacement of the use of

charcoal and fuel wood for domestic cooking/heating, thereby reduce deforestation, greenhouse

gas (GHG) emissions and enhance environmental sustainability.

1.3 Research Questions

i. What are the sources of cooking energy in Keffi Local Government Area (LGA)

of Nasarawa State?

ii. What is the cost-benefit implication of biogas production and use?

iii. What factors are relevant to biogas production in Keffi Local Government Area

(LGA)?

iv. What are the factors constraining the adoption of biogas production from

organic waste in Keffi Local Government Area (LGA)?

1.4 Aim and Objectives

The aim of this study is to assess biogas potentials from organic waste in Keffi LGA of

Nasarawa State. This aim will be achieved through the following objectives set to:

i. identify sources of cooking energy in Keffi LGA;

ii. analyse the cost-benefit implication of biogas production and use in Keffi LGA ;
 iii. identify factors that will promote biogas production in Keffi Local Government Area

(LGA) and to

iv. assess factors constraining the adoption of biogas production from organic waste in Keffi

Local Government Area (LGA).

1.5 Significance of the Study

The significance of this study cannot be overemphasized due to the fact that energy supply

and waste management are crucial to the wellness of humans and to a country's economic

development. Waste-to-biogas has co-benefits of managing urban solid waste by ensuring

the safe and effective disposal, and generating useful renewable energy. Organic waste

could be fermented by aerobic bacteria to produce a very versatile and cheap fuel (biogas)

which can be utilized as fuel for small-scale industries, household cooking energy etc.

Biogas production has diverse benefit economically it create wealth, job and energy,

environmentally it is friendly as it reduce volume of waste, does not produce or reduce

carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; it reduce the need for fossil fuel, fuel wood and

charcoal. Health wise, it is a clean energy and does not pollute the environment to cause

diseases. Biogas technology is a "carbon neutral process, "meaning it neither adds nor

removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Potentially, this technology is a significant

and profitable way of mitigating global climate change.

Digestion of organic waste is capable of producing biogas that could be used for cooking

and thus minimize deforestation. Thus, this study is significant as it will assess the

feasibility and constraining factors of biogas production from organic waste and suggest

solutions. As for who to benefit from this research, beneficiary of this work are the
authorities in energy sector/ waste management, investors in energy sector, students

conducting research in the topic of study and all residents of the study area as they need

energy and clean environment.

1.6 Scope and Delimitation of the Study

This study will cover biogas potentials from organic waste in Keffi LGA of Nasarawa State and

not elsewhere. The area of study is 5,141.14 km2, and has ten (10) electoral wards namely:

Ang.rimi, Angwan-iyathe I, Angwan-iya II, Gangare tudu, Jigwada, Keffi town east/ kofar

goriya, Liman/abaji, Sabongari, Tudun kofa t.v and Yara. This study will sample four of these

wards for generalization. Sampling method will help to reduce cost and time. Simple random

sample will be used to select these wards for data collection. The reason for using simple random

sampling is to give equal chance to every ward.

1.6.1 Delimitation

This work will be limited to biogas potentials from organic waste in Keffi LGA of Nasarawa

State. Firstly it is concerned with identification of prevailing cooking energy sources in Keffi

LGA of Nasarawa State; effects of their production and use; their cost and accessibility;

estimating the cost of producing biogas for household cooking energy; amount of organic waste

generated per household on daily basis, cost (time, money and land) of waste disposal and effects

(economic, environmental and social) of improper waste disposal. This will be used to analyze

the cost-benefit implication of biogas production and use. Secondly, it is concern with

assessment of promoting and constraining factors (temperature, availability of substrates, water,

labour and cost) of biogas production in Keffi LGA of Nasarawa State. This study is only

interested on using biogas as an alternative to fuel wood for household cooking energy, it is not

interested with other uses of biogas such as electricity supply. Thus, it is basically concern with
small-scale biogas for family use. Moreover, it is not concerned with biogas production

procedure or experimentation of biogas production. It will concentrate on the potential and

constraining factors of biogas production from organic waste. There will be no details of the

science and techniques of biogas production. However, use and reference will occasionally be

made; technical terms will be unavoidable, especially as the topic of the study is a highly

technical one. Throughout the work, the focal point of interest is potential of biogas production

from organic waste in Keffi Local Government of Nasarawa State.

CHAPTER TWO

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Conceptual Framework

The concepts to be considered in this study are: ‘waste to energy(WtE), sustainable development,

waste to wealth, organic waste, alternative energy, energy ladder, biogas, biofuel, bio digester

and waste management hierarchy.

2.1.1 Waste to Energy (WtE)

Waste-to-energy (WtE) or energy-from-waste (EfW) is the process of generating energy in the

form of electricity and/or heat from the primary treatment of waste. WtE is a form of energy

recovery. Most WtE processes produce electricity and/or heat directly through combustion, or

produce a combustible fuel commodity, such as methane, methanol, ethanol or synthetic fuels

(Herbert, 2007). There are a number of new and emerging technologies that are able to produce

energy from waste and other fuels without direct combustion. Many of these technologies have

the potential to produce more electric power from the same amount of fuel than would be

possible by direct combustion. This is mainly due to the separation of corrosive components

(ash) from the converted fuel, thereby allowing higher combustion temperatures e.g. boilers, gas

turbines, internal combustion engines, fuel cells. Some are able to efficiently convert the energy

into liquid or gaseous fuels. These technologies may be thermal or non-thermal technologies.

Example of thermal technology is gasification while that of non-thermal is anaerobic digestion

which produces biogas rich in methane. Fermentation is another non-thermal waste to energy

technology. Fermentation can take biomass and create ethanol, using waste cellulosic or organic

material. In the fermentation process, the sugar in the waste is changed to carbon dioxide and

alcohol, in the same general process that is used to make wine. Normally fermentation occurs

with no air present.

2.1.1.2 Global Waste to Energy Developments

During the 2001–2007 period, the WtE capacity increased by about four million metric tons per

annum. Japan and China each built several plants that were based on direct smelting or on

fluidized bed combustion of solid waste. In China there are about 434 WtE plants in early 2016.

Japan is the largest user in thermal treatment of MSW in the world with 40 million tons. Some of
the newest plants use stoker technology and others use the advanced oxygen enrichment

technology. There are also over one hundred thermal treatment plants using relatively novel

processes such as direct smelting, the Ebara fluidization process and the Thermo- select -JFE

gasification and melting technology process (Fellner et al, 2007). In Patras, Greece, a Greek

company just finished testing a system that shows potential. It generates 25kwatts of electricity

and 25kwatts of heat from waste water (Themelis, 2003). In India its first energy bio-science

center was developed to reduce the country’s greenhouse gases and its dependency on fossil fuel

(Sudarsan and Anupama,2006). As of June 2014, Indonesia had a total of 93.5MW installed

capacity of WtE, with a pipeline of projects in different preparation phases together amounting to

another 373MW of capacity (The Carbon Trust, 2014).

In recent times, there has been a major shift in thinking about what was usually considered

wastes. Wastes are now seen as a means of solving social and economic problems.

A major factor affecting Nigeria’s economic progress is power. And this has been a major

discuss in the country. A reliable and sustainable energy source is greatly desired to power the

nation’s economy and this need cannot be over emphasized. Thus, the feasibility of biogas

production from organic waste is the impetus for this study.

2.1.2 The Concept of Sustainable Development

In 1987 the United Nation's World Commission on Environment and Development (the

Brundtland Commission), in its report Our Common Future suggested that development was

acceptable, but it must be sustainable development that would meet the needs of the poor while

not increasing environmental problems. Brundtland commission, which coined what has become

the most often quoted definition of sustainable development. This is a development that meets
the need of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their

own needs. Sustainable development refers to a mode of human development in which resources

use aims to meet human need while ensuring the sustainability of natural systems and the

environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generation to

come.

Humanity’s demand on the planet has more than doubled over the past 45 years as a result of

population growth and increasing individual consumption (World Wide Fund for Nature, 2008).

A move toward sustainable living by increasing public awareness and adoption of recycling, and

renewable energies emerged. The development of renewable sources of energy in the 1970s and

80's, primarily in wind turbines and photovoltaics and increased use of hydroelectricity,

presented some of the first sustainable alternatives to fossil fuel and nuclear energy generation,

the first large-scale solar and wind power plants appearing during the 1980s and 90's (Southface

Energy and Environmental Resource Center, 2009). Also at this time many local and state

governments in developed countries began to implement small-scale sustainability policies

(International Centre for Sustainable Cities,1993).

The concept of sustainable development has in the past most often been broken out into three

constituents’ parts:

 Environmental sustainability

 Economic sustainability

 Social sustainability

2.1.2.1 Environmental Sustainability of Biogas Production Organic Waste

The use of organic wastes to produce biogas enhances environmental sustainability. Biogas

production from organic wastes reduces the need for fuel wood and fossil fuel for cooking

thereby improve energy efficiency and environmental performance in place of conventional raw

materials (Martin and Eklund, 2011). Through the production of biogas, industrial by-products,

agricultural and household wastes are given added value rather than been disposed to the landfill.

Environmental sustainability involves making decisions and taking action that are in the interests

of protecting the natural world, with particular emphasis on preserving the capability of the

environment to support human life. It is an important topic at the present time, as people are

realising the full impact that businesses and individuals can have on the environment. It is the

maintenance of the factors and practices that contribute to the quality of environment on a long-

term basis(Business Dictionary).

Healthy ecosystems provide vital goods and services to humans and other organisms. There are

two major ways of reducing negative human impact and enhancing ecosystem services and the

first of these is environmental management and a second approach is through demand

management of human resource use. The underlying driver of direct human impacts on the

environment is human consumption (Michaelis and Lorek, 2004). This impact is reduced by not

only consuming less but by also making the full cycle of production, use and disposal more

sustainable.
2.1.2.2 Economic Sustainability of Biogas Production Organic Waste

Economic sustainability "concerns the specification of a set of actions to be taken by present

persons that will not diminish the prospects of future persons to enjoy levels of consumption,

wealth, utility, or welfare comparable to those enjoyed by present persons"( Bromley, 2008).

Sustainability interfaces with economics through the social and ecological consequences of

economic activity (Costanza and Patten, 1995). Economic sustainability of biogas production

from organic waste is in its ability to: Provides cheaper energy and fertilizer; provision of

additional income to farmers; creation of job opportunities; decentralization of energy

generation and environmental protection and others.

2.1.2.3 Social Sustainability of Biogas Production Organic Waste

The general definition of social sustainability is the ability of a social system, such as a country,

to function at a defined level of social wellbeing indefinitely. That level should be defined in

relation to the goal of Homo sapiens, which is (or should be) to optimize quality of life for those

living and their descendents (http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/SocialSustainability.htm).

Social sustainability of biogas production from organic waste is that it create time for social

activities by reducing time spent on waste disposal and fetching of fuel wood mostly by women

and children. It is also smoke-free and ash-free kitchen, so women and their children are no

longer prone to respiratory infections which is capable of eliminating the affected person(s).

Sustainability issues are generally expressed in scientific and environmental terms, as well as in

ethical terms of stewardship, but implementing change is a social challenge that entails, among
other things, international and national law, urban planning and transport, local and individual

lifestyles and ethical consumerism(Billon, 2005). Social disruptions like war, crime and

corruption divert resources from areas of greatest human need, damage the capacity of societies

to plan for the future, and generally threaten human well-being and the environment. Broad-

based strategies for more sustainable social systems include: improved education and the

political empowerment of women, especially in developing countries; greater regard for social

justice, notably equity between rich and poor both within and between countries; and

intergenerational equity. Depletion of natural resources including fresh water increases the

likelihood of “resource wars”(Kobtzeff, 2000).

However, a major hurdle to achieve sustainability is the alleviation of poverty. It has been widely

acknowledged that poverty is one source of environmental degradation. Such acknowledgment

has been made by the Brundtland Commission report Our Common Future and the Millennium

Development Goals (United Nations, 2009). There is a growing realization in national

governments and multilateral institutions that it is impossible to separate economic development

issues from environment issues: according to the Brundtland report, “poverty is a major cause

and effect of global environmental problems. It is therefore futile to attempt to deal with

environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying

world poverty and international inequality” (United Nations, 2009). Individuals living in poverty

tend to rely heavily on their local ecosystem as a source for basic needs.

The concept of sustainable development has wide application. As early as the 1970s,

sustainability was employed to describe an economy in equilibrium with basic ecological support
systems. Ecologists have pointed to the limit to growth and presented the alternative of a steady

state economy in order to address environmental concerns.

Application of sustainable development in biogas production is the major motive of the

technology. Words and phrases like green, sustainable, renewable, and environmentally

conscious are all encompassed in biogas technology, because the production and use of these

energy source minimize adverse impacts on the environment. Sustainability is a broad concept,

with many definitions for differing disciplines (Lems et al., 2004). What is common to most

definitions, in regards to consumption and waste, is that consumption of materials and generation

of wastes should be constrained to acceptable level. This “acceptable level”, indicates that

resources should not be consumed faster than the rate of renewal, and generation of wastes

should not exceed the carrying capacity of the surrounding ecosystem. However, measuring this

acceptable level has been difficult due to a lack of tools, techniques and understanding of the

environmental, economic and social issues related to the surrounding environment. Despite this,

several authors have made a link between the second law of thermodynamics and sustainability

by considering entropy as a measure for sustainability ( Wall, 2010).

Using energy and entropy to measure sustainability, gives important insight into how effective

material and energy are used in a system. Systems are not sustainable if they consume energy

resources at a larger rate than that at which they are renewed (Wall, 2010), i.e. decreasing

energy. Therefore the increase of entropy, is a measure of the systems inherent chaos or disorder,

thus moving the system away from sustainability.

Minimizing the increase of entropy, i.e. minimizing the energy loss, provides a more sustainable

system. However, the increase of entropy is inevitable in our industrial and consumption

processes. For the purposes of this research, sustainability of biogas production concerns the
degree to which it can recover energy loss and reduce negative impacts on the natural

environment, social and economic elements (Figure 2.1)

Sustainability of Biogas Production

Sustainability of Oil production

Sus
tai
na
bili
ty
of
B io
gas
Pro
du
ctio
n Sus
tai
n ab
ilit
y of
B iog
as
Pro
du
ctio
n

Figure 2.1: The Sustainability of Biogas Production

Figure 2.1 Illustrate how biogas production contribute to environmental, economic and social

sustainability.

2.1.3Waste to Wealth (Recycling)

Waste to wealth is all about turning garbage to resources and minimize landfill use. They are a

key part of the value chain, with every ton of garbage benefiting 250 people throughout the

whole process of collecting and recycling. According to Salem, recycling also saves resources,

estimating that using recycled plastic saves Egypt 80 percent in imports. As the stage grapples

with unemployment and budget deficits, it needs to rethink its approach to the informal recycling

sector (Rana, 2011).

Recycling is an economic development tool as well as an environmental tool. Reuse, Recycling

and waste reduction offer direct development opportunities for communities. When collected

with skill and care, and upgraded with quality in mind, discarded materials are a local resources

that can contribute to local revenue, job creation, business expansion and the local economic

base. (www.ilsr.org/recycling/recylingmea...).

According to Rana (2011) more than 300,000 people in Cairo alone make a living from trash.

Simply removing it from the streets, however, won’t pay the bills; the real money is in culling

plastic, metal, paper, cloth and other materials from the refuse for recycling.

Waste to Wealth proves that 'green' and 'growth' need not be binary alternatives. Waste, currently

viewed as a menace, can be a resource for micro-enterprise development at a large scale. Such an

intervention has a two-fold objective of:

i. Reduction of pressure induced by waste on the environment.

 ii. Creation of opportunities for income and employment generation.

2.1.4 Alternative Energy

Alternative energy is any energy source that is an alternative to fossil fuel. These alternatives are

intended to address concerns about such fossil fuels, such as its high carbon dioxide emissions,

an important factor in global warming. Marine energy, hydroelectric, wind, geothermal and solar

power are all alternative sources of energy.

The nature of what constitutes an alternative energy source has changed considerably over time,

as have controversies regarding energy use. Because of the variety of energy choices and

differing goals of their advocates, defining some energy types as "alternative" is considered very

controversial (Herbert, 2007).

Historians of economies have examined the key transitions to alternative energies and regard the

transitions as pivotal in bringing about significant economic change (White, 2006; Reynolds,

2008; Gregory and Jacks,2010). Prior to the shift to an alternative energy, supplies of the

dominant energy type became erratic, accompanied by rapid increases in energy prices.

Wikimedia Foundation( 2016) outlined seven common types of alternative energy as follows:

i. Hydroelectricity captures energy from falling water.

ii. Nuclear energy uses nuclear fission to release energy stored in the atomic bonds of heavy

elements.
 iii. Wind energy is the generation of electricity from wind, commonly by using propeller-like

turbines.

iv. Solar energy is the use of sunlight. light can be changed into thermal (heat) energy or

directly into electricity via photovoltaic devices.

v. Geothermal energy is the use of the earth's internal heat to boil water for heating

buildings or generating electricity.

vi. Biofuel and ethanol are plant-derived gasoline substitutes for powering vehicles.

vii. Hydrogen can be used as a carrier of energy, produced by various technologies such as

cracking of hydrocarbons or water electrolysis.

An alternative source of energy known as biomass energy can help alleviate the energy needs of

the country and the African continent. Biomass energy can be harnessed in various forms but our

center of discussion is the biogas technology; which utilizes various organic wastes in order to

produce Biogas (biofuel), mineralized water and organic fertilizers.

2.1.5 History and Process of Anaerobic Digester (AD)

Historical evidence indicates that AD is one of the oldest technologies. Even around 3000 BC the

Sumerians practiced anaerobic cleansing of waste (Deublein and Steinhauser, 2008). However,

the industrialization of anaerobic digestion began in 1859 with first AD plant sited in Bombay

(India). In 1897, an anaerobic digester at Matunga Leper Asylum in Bombay used human waste

to generate biogas (Khanal, 2008). According to Deublein and Steinhauser (2008), other

countries that pioneered the evolution of biogas technology were:

France, in 1987 the streets lamps of Exeter started running on biogas produced from wastewater.

China, rural biogas system developed in 1920, while the national programme started in 1958.
Germany, agricultural products were used to produce biogas in 1945.Today, China is credited as

having the largest biogas programme in the world with over 20 million biogas plants installed

(Tatlidil et al., 2009).

According to Deublein and Steinhauser (2008), biogas technology was introduced in Africa

between 1930 and1940 when Ducellier and Isman started building simple biogas machines in

Algeria to supply farm houses with energy. Despite this early start in Africa the development of

large scale biogas technology is still in its embryonic stage in this region, though with a lot of

potentials. In Nigeria, the status of biogas technology remains abysmal. The earliest record of

biogas technology in Nigeria was in the 80s when a simple biogas plant that could produce 425

litres of biogas per day was built at Usman Danfodiyo University, Sokoto (Dangogo and

Fernado,1986). About 21 pilot demonstration plants with a capacity range of between 10m3 and

20m3 have been sited in different parts of the country. The two main products of biogas

technology are biogas (fuel) and biofertilizer (fertilizer).

The digester is the component of the manure management system that optimizes naturally

occurring anaerobic bacteria to decompose and treat the manure while producing biogas

According Tomori (2012) Anaerobic digestion consists of four main procedural steps which are:

i. Hydrolysis

This is the first stage of organic waste being broken down in AD. In this stage the organic waste

is broken down into monomers and polymers by the enzymes released by the fermenting

bacteria. “Carbohydrates and fats are hydrolysed within hours, proteins and lipids within several

days, and cellulose at a very much slower rate – if at all” (Tomori, 2012).

ii. Acidification
In this second stage of AD the products of hydrolysis are transformed into short chain volatile

acids, acetate, alcohols, hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The acetate, hydrogen and carbon dioxide

will skip the third stage and will be directly involved in methane formation in the methanogenic

stage. The concentration of hydrogen ions produced during this stage has a direct influence on

the simultaneous production of acetate.

iii. Acetogenesis

In this third stage the rest of the products from the earlier process are transformed by acetogenic

bacteria into hydrogen, carbon dioxide and acetic acid. The presence of hydrogen is very

important in this process as hydrogen at a low enough pressure will allow for the conversion of

all the acids. The lowering of the hydrogen pressure is carried out by hydrogen scavenging

bacteria. The measure of hydrogen concentration in a digester is an indicator of its productivity.

iv. Methanogensis

This is the final stage of the AD process in which all the products of the previous stages are

converted into methane and carbon dioxide, together with traces of hydrogen sulphide, nitrous

oxide and other gases. The two groups of bacteria involved in this process are the

Hydrogenophillipg.

Upgrading thereafter performed using an array of techniques, including water scrubbing, to

extract the biogas, which contains around 98% methane ( kommun, 2008; Svensk, 2009ab). This

biogas output is referred to in the text hereafter as biomethane, while the process refers to biogas.

The organic material used for biogas production can include inputs such as agricultural,

industrial and household wastes (Linköpings kommun, 2008; Svensk, 2009b; Ojolo et al., 2008;

Uellendah et al.,2012). Several by-products are simultaneously created during the biogas

process, including solid digestate and liquid digestate. These have applications as bio-fertilizers
or substrates for bioenergy product, i.e. use in CHP plants (Kratzeisen et al., 2010). Other gases

produced during the process, e.g. carbon dioxide, hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide and other gases,

may have further applications though they are usually released to the atmosphere (Lantz et al.,

2007; Svensk, 2009).

2.1.6 Biogas

Biogas is a gaseous mixture generated during anaerobic digestion processes using waste water,

solid waste (e.g. at landfills), organic waste, and other sources of biomass. Biogas can be

upgraded to a level compatible with natural gas (‘green gas’) by cleaning (removal of H2S,

ammonia and some hydrocarbons from the biogas) and by increasing its methane share (by

removing the CO2). The resulting green gas can subsequently be delivered to the natural gas

distribution grids. In developing countries, biogas could be an interesting energy option, in

particular for those countries that rely heavily on traditional biomass for their energy needs

(Abdulkarim and Maikano, 2008; Bras and Zootec , 2012)).

Biogas is a combustible mixture of methane and carbon dioxide. The process also eliminates

disease-causing organisms that cause disease in humans and animals.

Biogas is a mixture of gases mainly hydrocarbon (methane) and carbon dioxide used in domestic

cooking (Austin, 2014). Since ancient times, biogas is produced by the decay of vegetable and

animal waste, and was early identified as a combustible “swamp gas” (Ronald, 2012; Bailey and

Ollis, 2007). The highly desirable fuel was obtained by fermentation of sewage as early as 1934

and was used for heating and initial combustion engine for pumping (White and Plaskette, 2011).

Attention is currently focused on biogas generation from cattle waste distribution to towns and it

is being used on the farm. In the production of biogas, the biomass (cow dung) are allowed to
decompose an aerobically at room temperature, producing a gaseous product which contains

methane, carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide. This biogas which is mainly methane has to be

refined of CO2 and H2S in other to improve its efficiency and thermal content which can be used

for cooking and generating power.

Biogas as an alternative source of energy is renewable. But petroleum is non renewable and it

has been confirmed that non renewable source of energy could only last for about another 25

years or there about (John and Twidell, 2007; Tyagi, 2009). This uncertainty has created a lot of

anxiety for industrialized and developing nations and they are now look back to the past methods

of using biomass as one of the most viable remedy with purpose of improving it and eventually

making it an alternative to the current methods. At present, countries like India, United States,

Pakistan and China have actualized this idea and are still thriving well.

2.1.7 Biomass and Biofuel

The term biomass literally means living matter. However, biomass is often used to describe any

organic material obtained from plant and animal tissue(Schoene et.al., 2007). This includes

agricultural resources, agricultural residues, forest resources, waste including municipal solid

waste, industrial waste, and other wastes, as well as algae. These materials are referred to as feed

stocks in bio-refining and are classified into four generations: first, second, third, and fourth.

First generation refers to the biofuels derived from agricultural products: sugar or starch-based

crops and oil seeds, e.g. sugarcane to produce bioethanol or palm oil for the production of

biodiesel.
Biomass is organic matter derived from living, or recently living organisms. Biomass can be

used as a source of energy and it most often refers to plants or plant-based materials that are not

used for food or feed, and are specifically called lignocellulose biomass. As an energy source,

biomass can either be used directly via combustion to produce heat, or indirectly after converting

it to various forms of biofuel. Conversion of biomass to biofuel can be achieved by different

methods which are broadly classified into: thermal, chemical, and biochemical methods.

Historically, humans have harnessed biomass-derived energy since the time when people began

burning wood to make fire (Biomass Energy Center, 2012). Even today, biomass is the only

source of fuel for domestic use in many developing countries. Biomass is all biologically-

produced matter based in carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Wood remains the largest biomass

energy source today; examples include forest residues (such as dead trees, branches and tree

stumps), yard clippings, wood chips and even municipal solid waste (Herbert, 2007). Wood

energy is derived by using lignocellulosic biomass (second-generation biofuels) as fuel.

Harvested wood may be used directly as a fuel or collected from wood waste streams to be

processed into pellet fuel or other forms of fuels. The largest source of energy from wood is

pulping liquor or "black liquor," a waste product from processes of the pulp, paper and

paperboard industry. In the second sense, biomass includes plant or animal matter that can be

converted into fibers or other industrial chemicals, including biofuels. Industrial biomass can be

grown from numerous types of plants, including miscanthus, switchgrass, hemp, corn, poplar

willow, sorghum, sugarcane, bamboo and a variety of tree species, ranging from eucalyptus to oil

palm (Darby, 2014). Energy derived from biomass is projected to be the largest non-

hydroelectric renewable resource of electricity in the US between 2000 and 2020 (Herbert,

2007).
2.1.7 Biofuels

A biofuel is a fuel that is produced through contemporary biological processes, such as

agriculture and anaerobic digestion, rather than a fuel produced by geological processes such as

those involved in the formation of fossil fuels, such as coal and petroleum, from prehistoric

biological matter. Biofuels can be derived directly from plants, or indirectly from agricultural,

commercial, domestic, and/or industrial wastes (Zehner, 2012). Renewable biofuels generally

involve contemporary carbon fixation, such as those that occur in plants or microalgae through

the process of photosynthesis. Other renewable biofuels are made through the use or conversion

of biomass (referring to recently living organisms, most often referring to plants or plant-derived

materials). This biomass can be converted to convenient energy-containing substances in three

different ways: thermal conversion, chemical conversion, and biochemical conversion. This

biomass conversion can result in fuel in solid, liquid, or gas form. Solid biofuels include wood,

sawdust, grass trimmings, domestic refuse, charcoal, agricultural waste, nonfood energy crops,

and dried manure. Biofuels are different from fossil fuels in regard to net greenhouse gases but

are similar to fossil fuels in that biofuels contribute to air pollution. Burning produces airborne

carbon particulates, carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides (Nylund and Koponen, 2013).

Based on the source of biomass, biofuels are classified broadly into two major categories. First-

generation biofuels are derived from sources such as sugarcane and corn starch. Sugars present

in this biomass are fermented to produce bioethanol, an alcohol fuel which can be used directly

in a fuel cell to produce electricity or serve as an additive to gasoline. However, utilizing food-

based resources for fuel production only aggravates the food shortage problem (Nylund and

Koponen, 2013). Second-generation biofuels, on the other hand, utilize non-food-based biomass
sources such as agriculture and municipal waste. These biofuels mostly consist of lignocellulosic

biomass, which is not edible and is a low-value waste for many industries. Despite being the

favored alternative, economical production of second-generation biofuel is not yet achieved due

to technological issues.

2.1. 8 Energy Ladder

The energy ladder model assumes households to mimic the behaviour of a utility maximising

neoclassical consumer, which implies that they will move to more sophisticated energy carriers

as their income increases, maximizing their utility (Hosier and Dowd, 1987). Fuel switching is a

central concept in the energy transition process, referring to the displacement of one fuel by

another. A move up to a new fuel is simultaneously a move away from the fuel used before

(Heltberg, 2005). The fuels on the energy ladder are ordered according to the household‟s

preferences based on physical characteristics, including cleanliness, ease of use, cooking speed,

and efficiency (Hiemstra-van der Horst and Hovorka, 2008). As families gain socio-economic

status they abandon technologies that are inefficient, less costly and more polluting and move

from universal reliance on biomass fuels to transition fuels such as kerosene, coal and charcoal

belonging to the second phase. In the last phase, households switch to fuels such as LPG and

electricity (Heltberg, 2004). Higher ranked fuels are usually more efficient and costly, but

require less input of labour and produce less pollution per unit of fuel (Masera et al., 2000). The

energy ladder also assumes that more expensive technologies are locally and internationally

perceived to signify higher status. Families desire to move up the energy ladder not just to

achieve greater fuel efficiency or less direct pollution exposure, but to demonstrate an increase in

socioeconomic status (Masera et al., 2000: 2084).

The energy ladder model portrays wood as an inferior economic good, i.e. the fuel for the poor.

This implies a strong correlation between income and fuel choice. Cross-country comparisons

reveal a positive correlation between economic growth and modern fuel uptake, suggesting that

as a country progresses through the industrialization process, its reliance on petroleum and

electricity increases and the importance of biomass decreases (Hosier and Dowd, 1987: 347).

On a micro-level, empirical studies have confirmed the relation between income and fuel choice

too (Hosier and Dowd. 1987; Davis, 1998; Gupta and Kohlin, 2006; Farsi et al., 2007). However,

empirical evidence suggests that the linkages between fuel choice and income level are rarely as

strong as assumed by the energy ladder. Both Arnold et al. (2006) and Cooke et al. (2008) noted

that many estimated income elasticity of demand for fuel wood are insignificant, very low or

even positive. Studies in developing countries have shown that fuel wood can be an important

energy source for both urban and rural households at all levels of income (Hosier and Kipondya,

1993; Bhagavan and Giriapa, 1994; Brouwer and Falcon, 2004; Hiemstra-van der Horst and

Hovorka, 2008; Mirza and Kemp, 2008). At the same time there are also numerous examples of

low income households using advanced modern fuels such as electricity and LPG (e.g. Davis,

1998; Campbell et al., 2003; Brouwer and Falco, 2004). However, these studies were all

conducted in urban locations and therefore may not be representative for rural households.

Energy use patterns of the rich and poor are certainly not identical. The per capita modern fuel

consumption among high income households is far greater than that of low income households.

However, the above described observations indicate that the characterization of wood energy as

the “fuel of the poor” is an oversimplification (Hiemstra-van der Horst and Hovorka, 2008:

3336). It also suggests that a broader spectrum of influential factors besides income should be

considered.
Foley (1995) argues that it is a ladder of energy demand rather than fuel preferences that

determine fuel choice. Energy demand is driven by the services energy provides. At a

subsistence level households rely on biomass fuels for cooking and heating, which form the main

energy needs at that stage of development. With increasing income, the household can afford to

purchase a variety of appliances, each of which requires a specific energy source. This leads to a

more diversified energy demand including modern energy sources. For basic energy needs

households will continue to use biomass fuels and add fuels to accommodate the needs for their

changing lifestyle (Hiemstra-van der Horst and Hovorka, 2008).

Masera et al. (2000) go a step further and suggest that there is no such thing as fuel switching

and propose a multiple fuel model. Instead of switching fuels, households choose to consume a

portfolio of energy options at different points along the energy ladder.

The process of climbing the energy ladder is described in a pyramid ( Figure 2.)
 Figure 2.2 : Energy Ladder Model

Source: Masera et al. (2000)

2.1.9 The Concept of Waste Management Hierarchy

The waste hierarchy remains the cornerstone of most waste minimization strategies. The

aim of the waste hierarchy is to extract the maximum practical benefits from products and

to generate the minimum amount of waste. The waste hierarchy is represented as a

pyramid because the basic premise is for policy to take action first and prevent the

generation of waste. The next step or preferred action is to reduce the generation of waste
i.e. by re-use. The next is recycling which would include composting. Following this step

is material recovery and waste-to-energy. Energy can be recovered from biogas

production processes. The final action is disposal, in landfills or through incineration

without energy recovery. This last step is the final resort for waste which has not been

prevented, diverted or recovered (United Nations Environmental Programme, 2013). The

waste hierarchy represents the progression of a product or material through the sequential

stages of the pyramid of waste management ( Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3: Waste Management Hierarchy

Source: UNEP (2013)

This study adopted this concepts in that it seek to achieve the best strategy to waste management

processes in order to reduce the menace of improper solid waste management. The management

of waste is made up of processes, a step by step execution of these processes is required to

satisfy an ideal management practices and thus schemes should be developed and run with at

least a considerable level of organization for this activity to yield positive results within any

given territory or locality.

Having discussed several concepts and models relating to assessment of biogas potentials from

organic waste, this study adopts the concepts of sustainable development, waste to energy,

alternative energy, waste management hierarchy and energy ladder model in its framework

Figure 2.3 Relationship Among Sustainable Development, Waste to Energy, Alternative Energy,

Waste Management Hierarchy and Energy Ladder Model.

Figure 2.3 shows that sustainable development is the central idea for these concepts and models

namely: waste to energy, alternative energy, waste management hierarchy and energy ladder

model. Thus, sustainable development is the impetus for the study.

2.2 Literature Review

2.2.1 Sources of Household Cooking Energy in Nigeria

Ali and Richard in (2013) analysed of usage of different cooking fuel types among households in

Nigeria, it was revealed that more fuel wood is being used for cooking than any other fuel type.

Only Lagos state uses less fuel wood than other fuel types, while about 30% of households in

each of the remaining 36 states including Abuja the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) primarily

use fuel wood for their cooking. Similarly, solar energy is the least popular form of energy. It is

only used for cooking by 41,786 households in the country. Although, fuel wood use varies

across the different states, it was shown that the northern states to be the largest users of fuel

wood. Conversely, kerosene (modern fuel) which is the second most important fuel after fuel

wood (in terms of usage among households) dominates the southern part of the country,

particularly in the southern states of Lagos, Oyo, Rivers and Ogun where the use of kerosene

surpasses any other cooking fuel type.

Chukwu (2001) observed that over 70 percent of the total population of Nigeria relies on fuel

wood or charcoal as their major source of energy for cooking and heating purposes. Similarly, it

has been estimated that approximately 2.5billion people in developing countries rely on biomass

fuels to meet their cooking needs (Mekonnen and Kohlin 2008) for many of these countries more

than 90 percent of total household fuel is biomass. Without new policies, the number of people
that rely on biomass fuels is expected to increase to 2.6billion by 2015, and 2.7 million by

2030(about one third of the world’s population) due to population growth (IEA, 2006). While

rural households rely more on biomass fuels than those in urban areas, well over half of all urban

households in sub Saharan African rely on fuel wood, charcoal or wood waste to meet their

cooking needs (IEA 2006).

Itanyi and Ugwuanyi (2014) investigated the diversified areas of wood extraction for fuel among

Nigerians using participant observation. They found that excess population cum urbanization in

the country re-oriented many people/organizations to depend heavily on wood fuel as source of

energy for several reasons. One of such reasons is the hike in prices of other sources of energy

like electricity, cooking gas, kerosene and its stove etc. Wood fuel is affordable and readily

available, unlike other sources that are recurrently scarce with constant hike in prices. They

stated “that poverty seems to be endemic in Nigerian society; everyone is resorting to wood fuel

for cooking among other things. The first users of wood fuel for cooking and heating were

people at the rural areas. This category of users used wood directly, harvesting only dead woods,

dry branches and twigs. It was when the trend extended to urban areas that the harvest of wet or

life woods commenced. Saw-dust from wood were collected from timber shades and be used in a

stove shaped oven. In another development, wood is reduced to charcoal, which is supplied to

urban areas to be used as fuel in a stove-like oven; another type different from that of the saw-

dust”.

Momodu (2013) examined the role and challenges associated with the use of fuel wood in

Nigeria. Desk research on energy utilization, rate of deforestation and alternative sources of

energy provided data for the paper. Content analysis of available data was used in the preparation

of the paper. The paper revealed that domestic energy accounts for more than 50 per cent of the
total energy consumed in Nigeria. The paper further shows that fuel wood provides energy for

more than 60 per cent Nigerians and also responsible for meeting 80 per cent of domestic energy

needs. It explained that majority of Nigerians adopted fuel wood for meeting domestic energy

needs due to the high level of poverty, inadequate infrastructure and lack of political-will to

address the country’s energy challenges. The paper therefore recommends the use of gas,

kerosene and electricity for domestic needs in order to conserve the nation’s forest resources,

prevents loss of biodiversity and conserve the ground water.

Babanyara and Saleh (2010) have identified that fuel wood constitutes the main sources of fuel

for cooking by over 76% of the Nigerian population, living only 24% to cooking gas, kerosene,

electricity and so on. On a similar view, Sambo (2005) discovered that Nigeria use 80 million

cubic meters (4.3×109kg) of wood fuel for cooking and for other domestic purposes per annum.

Olasunkanmi and Ogunjobi (2015) examined household energy consumption in Ogun State.

Primary data on socio- economic characteristics of household head, expenditure on energy and

non- energy sources were collected from 150 respondents using stratified random sampling

technique. Descriptive statistics and multinomial logit were used for data analysis. Descriptive

statistics was used to analyze socio economic characteristics of household head and to determine

the share of each energy source on total expenditure on energy. Multinomial Logit and Tobit

regression models were employed for the analysis of the determinants of fuel choice, the

determinants of energy consumption. The determinants of fuel choice (solids) are prices of

wood, kerosene and family size squared significantly and positively influence the choice of fuels

while prices of wood, kerosene and electricity determines the monthly household’s expenditure

on fuels. The effect of family size on the choice of fuels is negative and nonlinear (Onyeneke et

al., 2015).
Maconachie et al. (2009) in their work “Descending the energy ladder, oil price shocks and

domestic fuel choices in Kano, Nigeria” show that cooking fuel consumption in Kano city

(Northern Nigeria) is based in favour of the traditional fuel wood (i.e. the northern population are

descending the energy ladder, not ascending it, as might be expected).

The finding of Maconachie et al. (2009) prompted Ali and Richard in (2013) for wider

exploration of cooking fuel supply and consumption at the national scale, in order to understand

the spatial patterns of fossil fuel distribution and consumption in the country, with a view to

examining whether there are any spatial patterns of such inequalities amongst households across

the 36 states of Nigeria (and Abuja the capital city). Spatial analysis of the distribution and

consumption of cooking fuel was conducted using Geographical Information Systems (GIS). The

results show that fossil fuel supply is precarious in the country. The majority of the northern

states are deprived of sufficient fossil fuel, and this is closely correlated with their dependence on

traditional fuels (fuel wood), leading to considerable pressure on the region’s scarce vegetation

resources.

Onoja and Emodi (2012) identified the consumption pattern of fuel wood products, profitability

of fuel wood supply and the major supply determinants in Kogi State, Nigeria. A total of 90

respondents were randomly selected comprising of 30 respondents each from 3 Local

Government Areas (LGAs) of the state (i.e. Olamaboro, Lokoja and Idah LGAs, each

representing an agricultural zone). An interview schedule and a set of structured questionnaire

were used to collect data from the respondent. Data collected were analyzed using descriptive

statistics, various measures of profitability and multiple regression analyses. It was found that

majority of the respondents used fuel wood for cooking and food processing/preservation; fuel
wood supply business was very profitable with a profitability Index of 75% and an average profit

of about US$3470.03 per annum/supplier; the profitability of the business was largely influenced

by education level, experience, market price of fuel wood and distance of supplier/producer from

the forest. Onoja and Emodi (2012) recommended that government should promote the business

in a sustainable manner as a way of poverty alleviation, employ extension agents to train the

suppliers and plant more forests near urban and rural areas.

Zaku et al. (2013) examined the wood fuel used and the energy ladder in Kaduna State. It was

found that wood fuel in Kaduna State is the most highly consumed fuel, together accounting to

about 1,722,904 t/year consumed per person in the State. The explained that the major reason

why people used wood fuel as the alternative source for heat energy generation is poor income,

poverty and like of adequate national grid.

Analysis of the wood fuel data over the decades has revealed certain trends in the wood fuel

consumption. Firewood is the predominant fuel used in the rural areas of developing countries,

whereas charcoal is the preferred fuel in urban centers replacing firewood as incomes rise

(Arnold et al., 2006; Kituyi, 2002). The implication of this is that as the economies of developing

nations grow, one would expect to see a decline in the wood fuel mix of the country (Girard,

2002).

This has indeed been observed in Asia where the consumption of wood fuels is declining in

favour of alternative fuels, reflecting the rapid economic growth of the region since the 1980s.

However, in Africa, one of the most marginalized regions in the world, economic growth has

been slow and wood fuel consumption is increasing (Kituyi, 2002). This growth is associated

with the rural to urban migration found in many African countries, combined with low incomes

and savings, which inhibit the transition to others fuel types. As a result, Africa’s wood fuel
dependence is likely to persist for decades to come, which could have significant consequences

for forest resources and the rural livelihoods dependent upon them (Kituyi, 2002; WEC, 2004).

Audu (2013) determined the degree of fuel wood consumption in Nigeria using data of the

percentage (%) distribution of households by type of fuel for cooking in 2007, areas of the desert

– prone states in km2 and the population figures of the affected states. The results are presented

in tables, analyzed using descriptive and comparative methods. The result shows that fuel wood

is there about the only means of domestic fire in the desert – prone states leading to

desertification as other sources of domestic fire are almost not in use. It was therefore suggested

that other means of domestic fuel such as wind, solar, kerosene, electricity, coal and gas should

be made available at affordable rates and encouraged for use by ensuring continuous and

constant supply. Other measures of mitigating desertification such as afforestation, re –

afforestation, creation of more forest and plantation reserves, creation of more shelter belts,

controlled grazing and perennial cropping among others were also suggested.

Haruna et al (2015) studied life cycle environmental impacts and costs of household cooking

sector in Nigeria from 2003 to 2030. Five scenarios were considered: business as usual,

dominated by fuel wood stoves; low penetration of improved fuel wood and solar stoves, as

planned by the government; high penetration of these stoves; increased use of fossil fuel stoves;

and increased use of electric stoves. It was found that if business as usual (BAU) continues, the

environmental impacts would increase by up to four times and costs by up to five times, mainly

because of high fuel wood consumption. Implementing the government’s plan to introduce

improved fuel wood and solar stoves would yield no environmental advantages, as the proposed

number of stoves is too low. A higher number of the advanced stoves would lead to significant
improvements in some impacts but would worsen others so that some trade-offs are needed.

From the economic perspective, the scenario with a high use of advanced stoves has the lowest

total costs but its capital costs are three times higher than for BAU. They recommended that

government should prioritise the introduction of advanced stoves to reduce health impact from

indoor pollution and reduce pressures on biomass resources; however, this may require subsidies.

Fossil fuel and electric stoves would also help to preserve biomass and reduce health impacts

from indoor pollution but would lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and depletion of

fossil resources.

Existing literatures on sources of household cooking energy in Nigeria portray that fuel wood is

the major sources of cooking energy in Nigeria and that majority of Nigerians adopted fuel wood

for cooking due to lack of cheaper alternatives. This is due to high level of poverty, cost of fossil

fuel and inadequate electricity supply. Moreover, it is well recognized that even though biomass

is a renewable resource and cheaper than other sources of cooking energy (kerosene, liquefied

gas, electricity and solar energy), the way and the rate at which it is consumed is unsustainable

and needs interventions to increase the efficiency of use or find substitutes to ease the burden on

the biomass stocks. As a result, many recommended other means of cooking fuel that are

sustainable. Thus, sustainability is rational behind the present study.

2.2.2 Cost- Benefit Implication of Biogas Production and Use

Standard analyses of economic viability of biogas energy production systems tend to emphasize

primarily on direct financial costs and benefits associated with biogas production (Yiridoe et al.,

2009). However, CAEEDAC (1999) advised that when considering the cost-benefit implication

of biogas plants, non-economic factors also be considered. The overall economic evaluation of

the viability of biogas energy production model is undertaken by use of economic decision
criteria commonly used to evaluate the viability of alternative investment opportunities,

including net present value, internal rate of return and payback period (Yiridoe et al., 2009). This

is important to take care of both tangible and intangible benefits of biogas systems (Adeoti et al.,

2000). While all the likely tangible benefits are normally taken into account in financial

evaluation, the intangible benefits such as additional benefits in terms of incremental fertilizer

saving are often invariably not considered in the analysis rendering such evaluations incomplete

(Purohit and Kandpal, 2007).

The different decision criteria need to be used in the analysis because they consider different (but

complementary) attributes of economic viability of the biogas system being evaluated.

Consistent results from the different decision criteria help to improve the robustness of the

analysis, as well as increase confidence in the viability of the investment opportunity (Odeh et

al., 2006). Other studies that used these criteria to assess the financial feasibility of on-farm

biogas energy projects include Adeoti et al. (2000); Caputo et al. (2005); Odeh et al. (2006); and

Yiridoe et al. (2009).

Sensitivity analysis using estimated economic values (costs and benefits) is often undertaken to

incorporate uncertainty into the economic evaluation. There are many assumptions and

uncertainties involved in the cost benefit analysis. The parameters may vary due to location

(such as the price of fuel wood, interest rates), technology development (such as the change of

lifetime biogas plants: improvement of cooking stove efficiency) and various other factors

(Kandpal et al., 1991). Sensitivity analysis is used to generalize the results for different situations

where input parameters and costs differ (Odeh et al., 2006) and explores the net effect on the net

present cost of the systematic changes in individual parameters (Wilson, 1979).

There exist a variety of economic analyses that have been produced to appraise large-scale

digesters in more developed nations; Netherlands (Gebrezgabher, 2010), UK (Rural Futures Ltd,

2010), Denmark (Møller and Martinsen, 2013) and Brazil (Lassner, undated), showing

potentially good returns to investment. These digesters operate with hundreds of livestock and

are located in regions with a high degree of technical expertise.

However, economic analysis literature on the use of small-scale community biogas digesters is

relatively scarce and the findings in terms of viability varied. On the positive side, Hemstock

(2008), conducted a theoretical analysis for large-scale digesters for Tuvalu and found positive

expected returns for large-scale piggeries. Woods et al. (2006) also produced an analysis for a

large-scale (300 swine) biogas digester in Fiji. A financial analysis with zero per cent interest

rate indicated it would take around three to six years to break even. This digester did run without

problems for four years but was then decommissioned due to lack of maintenance (replacement

of a broken part).

Similarly, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO, 1992) provides an overview of

community digester projects, noting varied success internationally, but notes that success of

investment has been recorded for small-scale digesters in China and larger scale digesters in

other parts of Asia under certain conditions. The results are dependent on the type of inputs used

in the digester, the alternative energy sources, appropriate use of all outputs including digestate

and other social factors.

Salerno et al. (2017) carried out costs-benefits analysis of a small-scale biogas plant and

electric energy production. The study was focused on the comparison of several incentive

systems that have followed over time. The analysis was carried out using some economic

indicators; results revealed that the investment profitability was descending passing from the old
all-inclusive rate to the current incentive scheme. It was emphasized that the use of products,

rather than by-products, penalizes investment by reducing the incentive rate, thus putting the

investment in a high financial risk. They opined that small biogas production plants enable

positive benefits in social, economic and environmental terms.

Wilks (2014) carried out preliminary cost benefit analysis of a biogas digester in Choiseul

communities Solomon Islands. This document seeks to provide information to the Provincial

Development Farm (PDF) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAL) management of

the potential range of costs and benefits associated with setting up and running a digester,

providing a guide for collecting data from the demonstration site, and identifying the risks and

uncertainties which will affect biogas digester viability at the community level. Employing a

CBA methodology, this study found that without having a sufficient value for fertilizer benefits,

a digester using 15 kg manure per day would not be expected to breakeven, and losses would be

expected to increase with every year the digester is running. It stress that even if fertilizer

benefits were quantified, using only 15 kg swine manure used as input per day, it is possible that

the digester will not produce enough benefits to cover its costs. It was suggested that this could

be one of the reasons behind the fact that very few digesters have been set up in the Pacific. It is

likely that these rational individuals have already undertaken some form of simple cost benefit

analysis and decided not to invest in a digester.

Gebrezgabher (2010) analysed the economic performance of anaerobic digestion of a given

biogas plant based on net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) concepts. A

scenario analysis is carried out based on a linear programming model to identify feed stocks that

optimize electricity production and to determine the optimal application of digestate. In addition

to a default scenario, management and policy scenarios were investigated. Economic evaluations
of all scenarios, except no subsidy scenario, show positive NPV. The highest NPV and IRR

values are observed under reverse osmosis (RO) as a green fertilizer scenario. Findings show that

treating RO as a green fertilizer, as opposed to manure (default scenario), is not only lucrative for

the plant but also lessens environmental burden of long distance transportation of concentrates.

This paper also concludes that given the uncertainty of regulations concerning RO and the

currently low values of digestate and heat, high investment and operating costs limit feasibility

of anaerobic digestion of wastes of farm origin and other co-substrates unless subsidies are

provided.

Riva et.al (2014) assessed the economic sustainability of three different biogas full scale plants,

fed with different organic matrices: organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) (Plant

A), energy crops (EC) (plant B) and manure from agro-industrial (Plants C). The plants were

observed for one year and total annual biomass feeding, biomass composition and biomass cost,

initial investment cost and plant electric power production were registered. The unit costs of

biogas and electric energy were differently distributed, depending on the type of feed and plant.

Plant A showed high management/maintenance cost for OFMSW treatment Plant B suffered

high cost for EC supply (49%) of total cost and Plant C showed higher impact on the total costs

because of the depreciation charge. The breakeven point for the tariff of electric energy,

calculated for the different cases, resulted in the range 120-170 € MWh(-1)EE, depending on fed

materials and plant scale. It was noted that EC had great impact on biomass supply costs and

should be reduced, in favor of organic waste and residues; plant scale still heavily influences the

production costs. Thus, this study focused on the use organic waste to generate biogas.
In assessing the cost- benefit implication of biogas projects one should distinguish four major

areas of applications: individual household units, community plants, large-scale commercial

plants and industrial plants. In each of these cases, the financial feasibility of the facility depends

largely on whether outputs in the form of gas and slurry can substitute for costly feeds which

were previously purchased, the efficiencies with which the fuel is used or possible equipment

which could lead to higher efficiencies. If ‘externalities’ such as employment, import

substitution, energy security, environmental protection, and so on are considered then the

economics change usually in favour of the biogas technology (Hall et al., 1992).

Singh and Sooch (2004), in their comparative study of different biogas plant models in India,

underscored the importance of determining economic viability of family size biogas plants as a

vital ingredient in the development of biogas technology. Srinivasan (2008) observed that

domestic biogas programs are often justified on the basis of the private benefits and costs

accruing to the individual households. However, the economic surpluses from domestic biogas

programs are realized beyond such narrowly defined project boundaries.

This implies that the total benefits accruing from the installation of biogas plants exceed the

benefits to the individual who invests in, receives or runs the service. Society is perhaps, likely to

benefit more than the individual recipient does (Srinivasan, 2008).

Hall et al. (1992) assert that a number of developing countries could adapt and improve the

technologies for modern bio-fuels but the contentious problems are with economics. Taleghani

and Kia (2005), in their technical–economical analysis of the Saveh biogas power plant in Iran

indicated that there were several economic benefits from using biogas plant. These included

treatment of solid waste, reduction of foreign exchange needs and generation of income,

improved soil/agricultural productivity and recovery of material for the recycling industry.
However, they noted that environmental benefits to the society were hard to quantify

economically.

The use of biogas has a potential to improve the quality of life in the rural areas through reduced

drudgery in women and children, reduced indoor smoke, improved sanitation and better lighting

(Amigun and Blottnitz, 2010). Wood fuel gathering is a hard and time consuming duty for

women. For instance, it is estimated that women can spend 2-6 hours in collecting wood fuel

(DFID, 2002) depending on the country and region. For instance, one study in Limpopo, South

Africa found that the rural women spend 5-6 hours (Masekoameng et al., 2005), while another

study in a different region of South Africa report that the women spend over two hours. This

takes away time that could be better utilized in other productive activities such as income

generation or education particularly for girls who have to be absent from school to undertake

such task. Biogas plants thus can help in reducing the workload of women and girls in collecting

firewood.

Burning traditional fuel releases smoke which contains toxic pollutants such as carbon

monoxide, hydrocarbons and particulate matter (Smith et al., 2005). Some of the prevalent health

problems caused by the smoke inherent to traditional ways of cooking and heating, particularly

open fires include: sneezing, nausea, headache, dizziness, eye irritation and respiratory illnesses

(Onguntoke et al., 2010). Biogas improves health of the rural people by providing a cleaner

cooking fuel thus avoiding these health problems. Women and children have the greatest risk of

these health problems and children under 5 years are at high risk of contracting acute respiratory

illnesses such as, pneumonia. Often, the rural populations are also faced with lack of sanitation,

resulting in water borne diseases affecting mainly women and children. Operating a biogas plant
implies that manure is directly fed to the plant keeping the kitchen smoke free and farmyard

cleaner.

Biogas energy, a clean and renewable form of energy, could augment conventional energy

sources because of its environment friendliness allowing for efficient waste utilization and

nutrient recycling (Bhat et al., 2001). Generally, biogas digesters have come to symbolize access

to modern energy services in rural areas and are slated to considerably improve health and

sanitation, and to yield significant socioeconomic and environmental benefits (Srinivasan, 2008).

It is a versatile source of energy which meets several end uses, including cooking, lighting and

motive power generation (Rubab and Kandpal, 1995). When used as a cooking fuel, it provides

for better combustion than the less efficient cooking fuels like fuel wood. It is comparatively

clean and hygienic (Jingura and Matengaifa, 2008) because bacteria and other pathogens are

destroyed through anaerobic treatment. By substantially reducing drudgery for women

(Mwakaje, 2008) and indoor smoke and resultant ocular and respiratory infections, biogas

digesters contribute to improved health and reduction in medical expenditure (Srinivasan, 2008).

Biogas technology has no geographical limitations (Taleghani and Kia, 2005) and is produced

mainly from raw materials that are locally available making it a cheaper and simpler option

(Gautam et al., 2009). In addition, these energy resources can be developed extraordinarily

rapidly and enables the valuable by-products of the process – methane, fertilizer and solid fuel

content – to be harnessed in controllable, containable and useable quantities. In short, it actually

transforms a costly problem into a profitable solution (AFREPREN, 2004).

Furthermore, the development and utilisation of biogas energy will improve the quality of life,

and provide a dependable power supply to the rural and urban areas (Iniyan and Jagadeesan,

1997). Bioenergy can contribute to the generation of new jobs especially in rural and farming
communities, which, in turn, may result into the improvement of income distribution (Erdogdu,

2008). Akinbami et al. (2001) adds that generally the new and renewable energy resource

systems also offer attractive prospects because they preserve ecosystems and retard degradation

of the environment. Biogas energy has formidably positive environmental properties, resulting in

no net releases of carbon dioxide and very low sulphur content (Erdogdu, 2008). Biogas

technology leads to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (Han et al., 2008), eutrophication

and air pollution, and improves utilisation of crop nutrients (Lantz et al., 2007). In fact, a proper

functioning of biogas system in particular can provide multiple benefits to the users and the

community resulting in resource conservation and environmental protection (Yadvika, 2004).

Biogas energy use has a significant contribution to security of energy supply and sustainability.

Reliance on imported fuels, especially fossil fuels, threatens the essentials of sustainable

development because they are unreliable, expensive and exhaustible. Bioenergy not only

contributes to energy diversification strategy but also substitution of energy imports making it an

important energy source for economic and national security reasons (Erdogdu, 2008). With

respect to energy, it is clear that with time renewable sources will play a more significant role

(Iniyan and Jagadeesan, 1997) than the conventional sources of energy. Akpinar et al. (2008)

reported that in the foreseeable future, biogas energy will play a significant role in producing

green power. Furthermore, bioenergy presents an opportunity to move towards more

decentralized forms of electricity generation where a plant is designed to meet the needs of the

local consumers, avoiding transmission losses and increasing flexibility in system use, which in

turn provides an opportunity to increase the diversity of power generation plants and competition

in energy generation within the economy (Erdogdu, 2008).

There are several reasons why biogas energy in particular seems an appropriate and important

option to augment Northern Nigeria’s conventional household cooking energy:

(i). Animal manure is widely available in most parts of the country because livestock production

is an important economic activity in almost all regions of the country.

Biogas can be generated throughout the year because of the suitable temperature for anaerobic

fermentation process in the tropics. Since Nigeria lies across the equator, temperatures are fairly

constant throughout the year, and always above 15°C.

(ii).Nigeria is facing serious electricity shortages because of heavy dependence on few

conventional unsustainable fossil and biomass energy sources. The high prices for petroleum

products and unsustainable pressure on the country’s forest biomass are exacerbating the current

energy crisis in Nigeria. Production of biogas fuel at the household level using local, renewable

resources reduces the pressures on forestry, centralized electricity production, and fossil fuel

distribution networks.

(iii). Animal manure is not methodically composted and integrated into farming practice in

Nigeria.

Biogas digesters perform the task of collectors of under-utilized dung, and with sufficient

awareness through biogas energy production and utilization, fertilizer nutrients can be recycled

to farms to preserve the fertility of the soil.

2.2.3 Importance of Biogas, Application Areas in Developed and Developing Countries

In countries like Germany, Denmark and Sweden the uses of the biogas produced ranged from

electricity generation, injection into natural gas pipelines, district heating and transportation fuel

in buses, cars, and trains (IEA Bioenergy 2005). For example, in the EU, 55 KWh of biomass-

based electricity were produced in 2004, mainly based on wood residues and MSW. Finland
produced 12% of its power consumption from biomass and wastes. In the United States some

85% of all wood process wastes (other than forest residues) are used for power generation

(Bioenergy, 2009). In developing countries the motives have mostly been different, and the sizes

have also differed from their developed counterparts. In countries like China that are believed to

have millions of domestic biogas digesters, they have helped reduce deforestation due to

firewood use, and also improved the sanitary conditions of rural areas, and improved the quality

of life of many families which use it (ISIS 2006). This can be said for many other developing

countries which all aim to use biogas production to achieve many of the same goals China

achieved with its biogas use. This has been done with use of varying feedstock from animal

manure, farm waste and human waste. Most of these goals are being achieved with the aid of

international organizations which invest in training and equipping of locals to build and maintain

biogas digesters (ISIS 2006). Developing countries mostly have domestic biogas production but

many are now investing in large-scale production for improved energy access for their citizenry.

At the same time, a proliferation of smaller-scale biomass-to-power or CHP projects has been

ongoing in both developed countries and emerging economies. In these countries, biomass-based

co-generation is well established in a number of agro-industries. China, Brazil, Latin America,

Thailand, and India are all increasingly employing biomass power alongside other renewable

resources (IEA, 2007). In Asia, Indonesia, Thailand and Taiwan peat, wood chips, bark,

vegetable oil and sludge are being directly co-fired with coal in industrial plants (IEA, Bioenergy

Task, 2010). On the other hand, the CDM has supported the development of hundreds of

biomass-based power generation projects of small and medium size (>35 MW) across the

developing world, often using agricultural residues as main feedstock. The vast majority of these
projects are located in Asia (>70%), followed by Latin America and only a few in Africa (IGES,

2010).

By using the wastes, the biofuels may improve their energy efficiency and environmental

performance in place of conventional raw materials (Martin and Eklund, 2011). Through the

production of biogas and other biofuels, industrial by-products and wastes may be given added

value through biofuel production in what may be called “upcycling.” According to (Derek,2015)

1 kilogram of food waste can produce an average of about 200 liters (7 cubic feet) of gas, which

can fuel an hour's worth of cooking over a high flame, so with a full daily input of 6 liters of

organic waste, the company's units can produce several hours of cooking gas each day, and can

help homes eliminate one ton of organic waste each year, and avoid generating the equivalent of

6 tons of CO2 annually.

Several countries discussed biogas for cooking in their TNA. The benefits the technology offers

for the environment and health was recognized by all. The TNAs highlight how the use of biogas

instead of firewood, may counteract uncontrolled harvesting of forests and improve health by

providing a smoke-free and ash-free kitchen. Furthermore, they all appreciate that women and

(children are spared the burden of gathering firewood. Kenya presents methane capture from bio

digesters as a top priority, because it provides clean energy for rural households (Ani, 2014)

Akinbami et.al (2011) stated that the merits of turning to this alternative source of energy are

labour intensive, low cost and its decentralized source for supplying energy in households or

communities. It is easily controlled and reduces emission of gases into environment since there is

no smoking or ash from the stock.

According to Sambo (2009), biogas technology is a very good solution to local energy needs. It

gives an opportunity for the decentralization of energy production. Energy can be produced and

used at point of production. System like this reduces cost of energy transfer especially where

energy needs are small, and helps in places where they are no mature energy grids.

Rao,et al.,2000; 2009) emphasized on the importance of biogas technology on commercial

farming and plantations “Biogas technology addresses holistically various agricultural problems

such as expensive fertilizers and feeds, primitive technology use, produce spoilage, poor waste

disposal, soil erosion, ecological degradation and importantly farm power”. They explained that

with the use of agricultural wastes through biogas technology, wastes from farms can used for

generating energy for brooding chicks, gas incubators and boiler operations. Fertilizer production

rich in NPK as microorganisms in the bioreactor fix nitrogen, which would have been lost to

volatization through the normal practice of spreading raw wastes or burning. The fertilizer also

helps in soil aggregation without accumulations of salts as characterized by raw organic wastes

application that are toxic to plants. Fertilizer is weed seed free, pathogenic microorganism

reduced drastically and odorless. Improve crop productivity and farm hygiene. It is usual for

livestock farmers to have fishponds, the mineralized water serve as nutrients for the growth of

planktons (Natural fish food) when used in fishpond fertilization, without harming fish

population and affecting dissolved oxygen. Reduce the amount of supplementary feed to be used.

The mineralized water has an alkaline pH that is required by fishpond and eliminating the need

for liming. The mineralized water when used for irrigation improves soil nutrient and neutralizes

acidic soil because of its alkaline pH.

Sambo et al (2015) identified importance of biogas production from agricultural waste as

follows:
 a. Abundant and readily available resources (agricultural wastes) that find no industrial

application can be used in biogas generation.

b. The use of agricultural wastes in energy generation offers a major control strategy against

environmental pollution and sanitation.

c. Desertification of the environment through the use of fire wood as domestic source of

energy and other forms of energy crisis can be greatly minimized.

Ani (2014) classified benefits derived in employing AD in treating organic wastes into energy,

agriculture, environment and economic sectors as follows:

A. Benefits for the Energy Sector:-

i. Source of renewable (green) energy, which leads to a lesser dependency on the finite

fossil fuels.

ii. The use of the digestate decreases the use of fossil fuels in the manufacturing of synthetic

fertilizer.

iii. It is carbon dioxide neutral.

B. Benefits for Agriculture:

i. Transformation of organic waste to very high quality fertilizer.

ii. Improved utilization of nitrogen (by plants) from animal manure.

iii. Balanced phosphorus/potassium ratio indigestate.

iv. Homogenous and light fluid slurry.

v. AD virtually destroy all weed seeds, thus reducing the need for herbicides and other weed

control measures.
 vi. Provides closed nutrient cycle.

vii. Treated effluent from AD is a good animal feed when processed with molasses and

grains.

C. Benefits for the Environment:-

i. Reduces emission of greenhouse gases (GHG).

ii. Reduces nitrogen leaching into ground and surface waters.

iii. Improves hygiene through the reduction of pathogens, worm eggs, and flies.

iv. Reduces odour by 80%.

v. Controlled recycling/reduction of waste.

vi. Reduces deforestation by providing renewable alternative to wood fuel and charcoal.

vii. Biogas burns “cleaner” than wood fuel, kerosene, and undigested biowaste.

viii. It creates an integrated waste management system which reduces the likelihood of soil

and water pollution compared to the disposal of untreated biowastes.

D. Benefits to the economy:

i. Provides cheaper energy and fertilizer.

ii. Provides additional income to farmers.

iii. Creates job opportunities.

iv. Decentralizes energy generation and environmental protection.

v. Tonnage of abattoir waste generated per annum in Nigeria (ECN, 2005).

vi. Tonnage of human excreta generated calculated using 1.093 × 10-3 tons/ind
In line with Ani (2014), Abdulkarim and Maikano (2015) noted that both small and large scale

biogas applications offer social, environmental, health and economic benefits as follows:

A. Social Benefits

Smoke-free and ash-free kitchen, so women and their children are no longer prone to respiratory

infections; Women are spared the burden of gathering firewood.

B. Environmental and Health Benefits

Keeping manure and waste in a confined area and processing them in the digester reduces the

amount of pollutants in the immediate environment and increases sanitation; Households no

longer need to extract wood for cooking, which can reduce deforestation levels where people

heavily rely on wood fuel; The sludge remaining after digestion is a good fertilizer, increasing

land productivity (and farm incomes).The release of methane is avoided thus contributing to

climate change mitigation. A single, small scale bio-digester reduces between 3 and 5

tCO2-eq./year.

C. Economic Benefits

Buying (fossil) fuel resources (e.g. kerosene, LPG, charcoal or fuel wood) is no longer needed

Switching from traditional biomass resources (e.g., in developing countries) or fossil fuels (e.g.

in industrialised countries) to biogas fired generation capacity improves security of energy

supply (locally as well as nationally or regionally) as the feedstock can mostly be acquired

locally.

According to Hussaina (2002), Industrial scale digesters also offer a number of benefits as

follows:
 i. Biogas can contribute to replace fossil fuels, thus reducing the emission of GHGs and

other harmful emissions;

ii. By tapping biogas in a biogas plant and using it as a source of energy, harmful effects of

methane on the biosphere are reduced;

iii. Industrial estates can, by processing their waste in a biogas plant, fulfill legal obligations

of waste disposal while at the same time, generate energy for production processes,

lighting or heating;

iv. Municipalities can use biogas technology to solve problems in public waste disposal and

waste water treatment (GTZ, 1999);

v. It’s a natural waste treatment process;

vi. It requires less land than anaerobic composting;

vii. It reduces disposed waste volume and weight of the landfilled;

viii. It generates high quality renewable fuel proven to be useful in a number of end-use

applications;

ix. It significantly reduces GHG emissions and

x. It maximizes recycling benefits considering the whole life-cycle, it is more cost-effective

than other waste treatment options (IEA Bioenergy, Task 37, 2005).

Technology Needs Assessment(TNA) on Cooking by: Zambia, Georgia, Sudan,

Cambodia, Kenya, Mali and Azerbaijan

In terms of where biogas are applied Akinbami, et al (2001) outlined and discussed application

areas of biogas as follows:

1. Agro-processing industries: The cassava processing plants can be supplied with energy for

running processing machines. Food packing plants and fruit processing plants can use their
wastes in producing energy for their domestic use. These plants can be located close to source of

wastes for good economics and waste sourcing. Processing plants can be located close to

abattoirs or farms and plantations.

2. Abattoirs: Are potential energy generating stations that can provide energy to power

factories, agro processing plants e.t.c. And stop the pollution these waste are causing.

3. Institutions: Religious camping grounds, boarding schools, campuses, and barracks are all

energy generating stations. Providing energy for cooking for students, pilgrims, cadets,

laboratory and educational use (researchers and student learning).

4. Markets: Our markets too are energy stations for providing fuel for factories.

5.Hotels and Eateries: Large hotels and eateries can be self sufficient of energy for coking and

fertilizers for the beatification of their lawns

6. Water hyacinth: This is problematic waterweeds that cost money to remove mechanically

and is still to be totally controlled. They can be used in generating energy. Biogas plants can be

sited closed to the water bodies providing energy for a cassava processing plant for example.

Another outstanding benefit of biogas is in climate moderation and sustainability. It has been

stated that biogas offers several sustainable development benefits since it is a clean and GHG-

neutral source of energy.

According to Marchaim (2012) most of the biogas has a methane component of 50 to 60%, a

CO2 component of 35 to 50%, and a relatively small amount of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and

ammonia. Waste-to-biogas has co-benefits of managing urban solid waste by ensuring the safe

and effective disposal, and generating useful renewable energy. Municipal Solid Waste (SMW)

management system involves generation of waste, segregation and collection, transportation,

transformation of the waste into useful materials (e.g. energy recovery) and final disposal.

Biogas can be recovered from the organic fraction of the solid waste in the anaerobic digestion

process.

2.2.4 Potentials of Biogas Production from Organic Waste in Nigeria

According to a biogas producing company (Home undated), 1 kilogram of food waste can

produce an average of about 200 liters (7 cubic feet) of gas, which can fuel an hour's worth

of cooking over a high flame, so with a full daily input of 6 liters of organic waste, the

company's units can produce several hours of cooking gas each day, and can help homes

eliminate one ton of organic waste each year, and avoid generating the equivalent of 6 tons

of CO2 annually.

Ngumah et al (2013) elucidates the potential benefits of organic waste generated in Nigeria

as a renewable source of biofuel and bio-fertilizer. The selected organic wastes studied in

this work are livestock wastes (cattle manure, sheep and goat manure, pig manure, poultry

manure; and abattoir waste), human manure, crop residue, and municipal solid waste

(MSW). Using mathematical computation based on the standard measurements. They

found that Nigeria generates about 542.5 million tons of the above selected organic waste

per annum. They stated that “this has the potential of yielding about 25.53 billion m 3 of

biogas (about 169, 541.66 MWh) and 88.19 million tons of biofertilizer per annum. Both

have a combined estimated value of about N 4.54 trillion ($ 29.29 billion).” They

explained that this potential biogas yield will be able to completely replace the use of

kerosene and coal for domestic cooking, and reduce the consumption of wood fuel by

66%. It was recommended that an effective biogas program in Nigeria will also
remarkably reduce environmental and public health concerns, deforestation, and

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Sambo et al (2015) carried out experiment on biogas production from co-digestion of selected

agricultural wastes in Nigeria. Using a slurry of 1 kg mixture of agro-waste feed stocks (plantain

peel/rice husk, PP/RH; banana peel/plantain peel, BP/PP; and banana peel/rice husk, BP/RH) in

1:1 ratio was co-digested in locally fabricated digesters (10 L capacity). The experiment was run

for 50 days and assessed for proximate content, biogas generation, organic matter, and mineral

content in the digested and undigested agro-waste materials. The proximate composition showed

that while banana peel had the highest moisture (56%), rice husk was highest in the content of

ash (64%), crude protein (6.94%), and volatile solids (20%). The weekly cumulative biogas

generation increased from 852.6 cm3 for BP/PP sample to 1049.7cm3 for PP/RH sample for the

7 weeks at the experimental room temperature range of 29 oC to 35 oC. Sample PP/RH generated

the highest volume of gas (biogas, methane, and others) compared to BP/RH and BP/PP samples.

In each case the volume of gas production decreased in week 7 from 271.4 cm3 to 152.0 cm3

(for biogas), 161.4 cm3 to 97.1 cm3 (for methane), and 110.0 cm3 to 54.9 cm3 (for other gases).

The nutritional concentrations of the digested and undigested mixture of the waste samples after

Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS) and Flame Photometry showed that the digested

samples had higher contents of the nutritional elements than the undigested samples. The mineral

elements ranged from 0.554 mg in the undigested rice husk to 18.155 mg/g in the digested

banana peel samples. They concluded that fermentation of agricultural wastes to generate biogas

and sludge with agricultural value offers an alternative and efficient method of agricultural

wastes and energy management in Nigeria.

2.2.5 Feasibility Studies on Biogas Production

Lima (2014) conducted research on feasibility of energy from-waste systems in the UK.

The aim was to interpret the issues surrounding the implementation of small-scale EfW systems

in the UK. To investigate these issues a case-study area was used and a techno-economic model

was applied to define the feasibility parameters of a modern advanced thermal treatment process

for around 20,000 tonnes of waste per year. A waste classification was performed in a typical

rural environment. The waste streams analysed were MRF residues (end-of belt residue, trammel

residue and ballistic separator residue) resulting from household waste and recycling waste. This

data was fed into the techno-economic model. The results of the techno-economic model show

that this type of facility is sensitive to variations in fuel properties, tonnages, operation and

operational availability. Ideally a waste derived fuel would have high calorific value and low

moisture content. However the analysis of municipal waste properties reveals that only a small

part of the waste has these characteristics. Thus, the paper suggested that it is necessary to

manipulate the calorific value in the overall waste stream in order to increase its potential for use

in Advanced Thermal Treatment processes.

Khatiwada (2012) in his research work titled “Waste- to- Biogas in Bolivia: Promoting

Sustainable Development” Carried out feasibility study on waste-to-biogas from organic waste in

the cities of La Paz and El Alto in Bolivia, considering technological, socio-economic and

environmental conditions for implementation. The study investigates the most favorable and

optimal technological solutions for converting waste-to-biogas in the cities of La Paz and El

Alto, taking account of the local conditions such as waste generation and its composition,

geography (i.e. mountainous high altitude land), stakeholders involved, investment capacity,

technological know-how, and also the institutional set-up. Energy demand, supply of renewable
biogas and infrastructure, and fossil fuel substitution potential were estimated. Swedish

experiences and expertise were used in assessing the waste-to-biogas potential and transferring

technological know-how. It was found that an advanced bio-refinery (Anaerobic Digester) for

biogas production is the most appropriate technological solutions for converting waste-to-biogas

in the cities of La Paz and El Alto. Taking account of organic waste as the feed stocks, biogas is

upgraded to natural gas standards and injected into the gas grid.

Partners in Project Green Pearson Eco-business Zone, Toronto conducted biogas plant feasibility

study in 2009. The feasibility study focused on three (3) key objectives: Identification of suitable

sites for the plant within the PEBZ and surrounding area; Identification and characterization of

the organic wastes being generated within the PEBZ and surrounding area to determine the

availability of sustainable feed stocks for the proposed biogas plant(s) and determine financial

feasibility of proposed biogas plant.

They identified several suitable sites within the PEBZ but supply is limited and costs are very

high (average of $695,000 per acre) for locating either integrated or stand-alone pre-processing

and anaerobic digestion facilities. Their waste survey, shows that a facility could secure liable

supply of the necessary organic waste to ensure consistent biogas generation from a 50,000 tonne

pre-processing and anaerobic digester located in the PEBZ.

On the financial feasibility they found none of the scenarios analysed generated the necessary

returns (20% IRR over 10 years). However, given the current industry conditions, (FIT energy

pricing, carbon credit ownership, waste disposal regulations) and prices (Tipping fees). They

suggested that there are several actions that combined levels of government can take in order to

create the right investment environment for the private sector to begin investing in

urban/suburban biogas generation facilities.

Tomori (2012) carried out feasibility study of a Large Scale Biogas plant in Lagos, Nigeria. This

study, reviewed a number of other biogas plants operating around the world. The costs per cubic

meter of gas produced were examined and were used to estimate a possible cost of such a plant

in Lagos. The net present cost (NPC) of such a plant was calculated, and a case study was used

to compare the use of biogas with natural gas for industrial heat processes. The feasibility of the

plant was explained and a sensitivity analysis of the effects of changes in capital cost and the

discounting rate was done. The NPC of the plant over its 10 year lifetime is $1.75million and it

has a Levelised cost of $0.78/m3. The plant at current operation parameters is not viable because

the net present value is negative. It was concluded that the plant is not viable but with some

changes in the regulatory environment, improvements in plant operations and extra efforts in

sourcing revenue it has the potential to solve a major problem and also generate a good profit.

Lima (2014) conducted research on feasibility of energy from-waste systems in the UK.

Investment analysis included NPV (net present value) and IRR (internal rate of return) analysis

of five scenarios which particularly reflected the impact on capital cost repayment. Results

showed that the most attractive option for investment is the nominal situation which presented

values of 17% IRR. All of the scenarios investigated returned a lower IRR, with values ranging

from 6% to 15%, which reflects its associated risk. The results obtained from the techno-

economic model show that nominal scenario is economically feasible. However, alterations to

chemical properties of the waste and operation of the thermal treatment processes impacts

greatly on economic feasibility which reflects the high risk associated to investments of this

nature.

2.2.6 Constraining Factors of Biogas Technology Adoption in Africa

Literature on factors influencing the adoption and development of biogas energy has increased in

the recent past highlighting technical, organisational and economic factors as critical (Adeoti et

al., 2000; Ni and Nyns, 1996; Walekhwa et al., 2009).

The implementation of the biogas technology on large scale may be prevented or slowed down

by a number of constraints. They may be grouped as follows: political, social-cultural, financial,

informational, institutional, technical and training (Ni and Nyns, 1996; Omer and Fadalla, 2003).

Lack of basic and advanced research in biogas technology by African scientists could be one of

the factors contributing to poor biogas technology application in Africa (Anthony and Wilson,

2009).

There is lack of coherent on biogas technology strategy in many sub-Saharan African countries

despite the increase in the price of conventional fuel on a daily basis, and their rising demand

mainly to technical and non-technical factors. The main contentious problems of biogas

commercialisation in sub-Saharan African countries relate to economics and political-will and

many site-specific issues. Some of these issues are informed by local dynamics of perceptions;

influenced by personal, social and institutional factors and beliefs, as well as internal conflicts,

due to perceived environmental, social and ecological risks, that were aggravated by

miscommunication and the lack of understanding.

Literature shows that, in many cases, non-technical reasons, including the loss of interest by the

digester/owner, are the main causes that lead to the failure of continuous digester operation (Ni

and Nyns, 1996). Some studies have also shown that at the local community level, the

availability and price of the traditional and conventional energy are the decisive part of adoption

of biogas technology when its main purpose is to obtain energy (Biswas and Lucas, 1997;

Kandpal et al., 1991). Similar conclusions can be drawn when the benefits of the digester are not
only focused on the biogas but also on bio-fertilizer or other products. This means that at the

local, regional or community level, the right selection of the location for the biogas plant is very

important.

Some of the difficulties thwarting development of biogas technology in Africa as reported by

(Mwakaje, 2007; Murphy, 2001, Lettinga, 2001; Lettinga, 1995, Switzenbum, 1995;

Tafdrup,1995; Iza et al., 1991) cited in Amigun et al. (2012) include:

i. Inexperienced contractors and consultants, resulting in poor-quality plants, and poor

choice of materials.

ii. Lack of reliable information on the potential benefits of the technology by financial

institutions.

iii. Complete absence of academic, bureaucratic, legislation and commercial infrastructure in

the region/country.

iv. Lack of knowledge on the system in practice, sometimes even in research institutes and

universities.

v. Community acceptance issues and poor ownership responsibility by users.

vi. Complete absence of pilot studies, and no full-scale experience.

vii. No properly educated operators, lack of credibility, lack of technical knowledge on

maintenance and repair.

viii. Uninformed or poorly informed authorities and policy makers.

ix. Failure by government to support biogas technology through focused energy policy.

x. Research at universities is frequently considered to be too academic in nature, even when

it is quite applied.
The main limitations to the adoption of large-scale biogas technology are both institutional and

economic. Establishing a self-sustaining institutional system that can collect and process urban

waste and effectively market the generated biogas fuel is a complex activity that calls for

sophisticated organisational capability and initiative (Karekezi, 1994ab, 2002ab cited in Amigun

et al., 2012 ).

Amigun et al. (2012) discussed factors that affect biogas production under economic, political,

technical and other factors as follows:

A. Economic factors which affect biogas production and commercialization

The economy of a biogas plant consists of large investments costs, some operation and

maintenance costs, mostly free raw materials, e.g., animal dung, water, aquatic weeds, terrestrial

plants, sewage sludge, industrial wastes, agricultural wastes and income from sale of biogas or

electricity and heat (Amigun and von Blottnitz, 2007). The economics of biogas production and

consumption is dependent on a number of factors specific to the local situation, as follows:

a. Cost of biomass material, which varies among countries depending on land availability,

agricultural productivity, labour costs, etc

b. Biogas production costs, which depends on the plant location, size and technology, which vary

among countries

c. The cost of corresponding fossil fuel (gasoline, diesel) in individual countries

d. The strategic benefit of substituting imported petroleum with domestic resources

B. Political factors affecting biogas production and commercialisation

The political barriers that exist are mainly in the area of sovereignty rights and the will to initiate

national biogas technology programmes. Another problem is the high number of armed conflicts

and political instability in the continent which together with the region’s debt burden have
reduced the region’s credibility. Hence, providing capital even for modest investments will prove

difficult. African governments need to commit themselves to renewable energy programmes.

Government constant commitments to the development and promotion of renewable energy

sources have been instrumental in promoting an ambitious alcohol fuel in Brazil, biogas

programmes in Europe, China and India. It could be helpful to learn from the experiences gained

in the developed world but adapted to the needs and situation in developing countries. However,

in some African countries, the hostile social climate and political instability prevent

opportunities of international collaboration and support.

C. Technical factors affecting biogas production and commercialisation

There are three major types of digesters that have been in use in developing countries:

Chinese fixed dome digester, the Indian floating drum digester and the more recent tube

digesters. These reactors are small in size (5-10 m3) and mostly used at household level to

deliver the energy demand for household cooking and lighting. The advantages of these reactors

are that they are inexpensive compared to sophisticated systems, can be built with locally

available material, are easy to handle and do not have moving parts which are prone to failure.

The working principle of these reactors is the same although there are substantial differences

between them. The substrate enters through the inlet pipe into the digester tank where the

substrate has an average retention time of 10-30 days. The biogas is collected above the slurry

and leaves the tank through a gas pipe into the top cover. In the fixed dome digester, the top is

made of concrete or bricks as the rest of the digester below ground. The floating cover type has

steel cover floating on the slurry, which is above ground, whereas the rest of the digester is also

below the ground. The digested slurry leaves the digester through an outlet pipe and is collected

in outlet pit. However, these digesters have several limitations. Each of the digester type does not
have facilities for mixing the slurry or for maintaining a certain temperature in the digester and

controlling it. There are also no facilities to remove sand, stones and other non-digestible

materials, which will over the years, accumulate and decrease the volume of the digester and

hence will reduce its efficiency. The accumulation of inert and non-degradable material makes it

necessary to stop the process from time to time and remove the materials, thereby increasing

labour and maintenance cost of the technology.

D. Other Factors

The site-specific issues that have limited the scope of biogas technology in sub-Saharan

Africa includes the availability of water and organic materials for effective bio-digester

operation. Limited water availability poses a constraint for biogas operation in some countries

because biogas plants typically require water and substrates such as manure to be mixed in an

equal ratio. Small-scale farmers frequently lack sufficient domestic animals to obtain enough

manure for the bio-digester to produce sufficient gas for lighting and cooking. Even where

households keep sufficient numbers of animals, semi nomadic or the free grazing system of

many communities in sub-Saharan Africa makes it difficult to collect

dung to feed digesters (Abbey, 2005).

Poor consultation and participation of stakeholders especially the users is another major factor

limit biogas production and use. According to Ni and Nyns (1996) projects intended to introduce

new energy technologies are conceived without proper understanding of the needs, problems,

capabilities and priorities of the targeted users. Most of the Chinese and Indian biogas plants

introduced in Africa are not functional due to many reasons. One of the major reasons of the

failure is the separation of national interests and individual family/community interests.

The Botswana biogas water pumping programme of the mid- 1980s is a good example of how a

misunderstanding of the target communities’ needs and problems lead to project failure. The

Botswana government’s effort was to introduce biogas as the main pumping fuel in some areas.

Water supply is a priority in Botswana due to its arid climate. The problems that arose were not

technical but rather socio-economic. The villages targeted to ‘benefit’ from the biogas-pumped

water felt disadvantaged in that they had to pay for the water they collected with cattle dung

while other villages paid nothing by using the usual government or donor-supplied diesel engines

(Amigun et al., 2012 ).

The benefits of biogas were important to the government as a means of reducing dependence on

imported diesel. The perception from the point of view of the intended project beneficiaries was

different. Today the biogas plants are disused. The principal reason is that real acceptance of the

biogas technology depends on individual interests that do not totally respond to those at the

national level. This suggests the necessity of understanding fully the individual interests of a

project.

Renewable energy projects conceived without carefully consulting the intended recipients and

beneficiaries face serious acceptance problems and fail prematurely due to abandonment.

Numerous large-scale demonstration projects such as a sophisticated integrated biogas engine

generator system at Kushinga Phikelela near Marondera in Zimbabwe collapsed when weaned

from donor support (Mbohwa and Fukuda, 2003). The reasons of failure had mainly to do with

supply of spare parts which had to be procured with scarce foreign currency and lack of local

capacity and funds to maintain demonstration installation. The host institute did not need the

biogas technology since it has grid electricity and hence neglected it.
Although, sanitation have been as a benefit of biogas production and use, is has also hinder it for

example, Brown, (2006) noted that some potential users are reluctant to try the biogas digesters

out of concern about sanitation. Use of human wastes for biogas production and the subsequent

digested sludge, for example in schools, as a source of fertiliser faces cultural and health

resistance. Even though the anaerobic digestion process naturally reduces the pathogen load,

handling biogas feedstock particularly human excreta and using biogas slurry as fertiliser does

pose some risk of infection.

The energy transition in Africa is an incremental process and not a leapfrog process, dependent

upon household, national and regional accumulations of technological capabilities. Biogas

technology absorption, therefore, cannot occur without the proper social, cultural, political and

economic institutions to support adoption, dissemination and appropriate contextual innovation

(Murphy, 2001 Ngbogo and Ebaei, 2006). The Taka Gas Project in Tanzania (Mbuligwe and

Kassenga, 2004) is a very good example of how large-scale biogas technology projects have

failed to take off in Africa. The main objective of the Taka Gas Project was to obtain biogas

through anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste from Dar es Salaam city and serve as a

model for other urban areas in Africa to emulate. The project was well prepared with analysis of

solid waste as feedstock for the project, strategies for operationalising the project, environmental

impacts and economic feasibility and other technical and non-technical and socio-economic

issues studied for the project but it has never took off the ground due to bureaucracy.

The investment cost of even the smallest of the biogas units is prohibitive for most rural

households of sub-Saharan Africa. Evidence from the experiences in Eastern and Southern

African countries is still limited, but the general consensus is that the larger combined septic

tank/biogas units that are run by institutions such as hospitals and schools have proved to be
more viable than the small-scale household bio-digesters. There is need for subsidy-led

programmes which will be demand-driven and market-oriented to increase the adoption of

biogas plants. Subsidies are justified to make up for the difference between ability to pay and the

higher societal benefits (maintenance of forest cover, prevention of land degradation, and

reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases) and private benefits (reduction in expenditure for

firewood and kerosene, savings in time for cooking and firewood collection and health) accruing

to users. Besides the expense, many consumers are hesitant to adopt the biogas technology

reflecting the lack of public awareness of the relevant issues. To date, this combination of factors

has largely stifled the use of biogas technology in Africa.

There is usually lack of enough supply of manure for efficient and sustainable biogas production.

Liquid manure is preferred for most biogas plants, but households may not be accustomed to

storing and handling it. People also find it difficult to collect, store and deliver fresh manure to

the digester. Liquid manure must be stored in pits or other installations that require investment of

time and labour. Therefore promotion of liquid manure digesters requires additional education

and training to ensure sustainability. The problems also include that animals must be penned for

effective collection of animal dung, farmers must own a sufficient number of livestock to

generate continuous flows of biogas, and the initial costs for the required infrastructure may be

deterrent (Karekezi, 2002b). The effort of maintenance and control on biogas plants often does

not meet the level of literacy skills of rural population.

There is a limited awareness of the potential and advantages of biogas production by citizens,

government officials, and in the business sector that has limited interest in biogas production.

More education, demonstration and investment in biogas technology would help overcome these
barriers. It is also important to realise that lack of information on improved technologies such as

biogas technology at all levels, government, energy institutions, and consumers, poses a very

serious problem for technology penetration. Poor infrastructures prevent access to even the vast

information available in the public domain about biogas technology and its application.

There is also lack of adequate coordinating framework as one of the most important weakness of

energy institutions in Africa. Lack of coordination among institutions and conflicting interests

are obstacles to good penetration of biogas technology into the African market. Rationalising

functions and building institutions around them will improve the situation (Davidson, 1992).

Constant persuasion and active campaigns can help reduce institutional inertia and resistance to

adoption of biogas technology. Most renewable energy technologies require long development

periods and dedicated stakeholders are important for building up experiences and competencies.

New technologies often need to be nurtured for over decades, before sufficient socio-technical

momentum emerges. Alignment between the technical, economic, regulatory and social context

can provide the basis for building up momentum, until the biogas technology is able to survive

on its own.

In some instances biogas plants have not worked effectively because of lack of support, lack of

repairs and poor design. Lack of knowledge about biogas technology is often cited as a reason

for non-adoption of biogas in some countries in Africa. Where people have installed biogas

reactors, problems arising from the bad quality of the installed units and the poor operations and

maintenance capacity of users have led to poor performance and even abandonment of biogas

digesters. In some instance, the demonstration effect has been one of failure and has served to

deter rather than enhance biogas adoption.

A survey in Kenya of about 21 existing plants in 1986 found only 8 out of 21 functional and 13

out of 21 not functional or never finished (Day et al., 1990). According to the authors, the major

problems associated with existing biogas plants in Kenya include inadequate design and

construction, poor maintenance, and poor social acceptance. The effect of individual economic

status is also important to consider in the assessments of biogas technology.

Ni and Nyns (1996) reported that most surveys have revealed that biogas is more accepted by

upper and middle-income farmers. The obvious effect of the income of individuals is the ability

of investment to install a digester system and above all to maintain it operational. The regular

operation of a biogas plant is more difficult to achieve than its initial installation. The routine

operation and maintenance of the digester system need much physical work that is usually

laborious and messy, making the biogas benefits less attractive.

2.2.7 Constraining Factors of Biogas Technology Adoption in Nigeria

Financing investments in biogas installations, especially in least developed countries, is a

problem. In Nigeria for instance, biogas technology has remained at the level of institutional

research work and pilot schemes. Its progress being stunted by ignorance, researches at

universities frequently considered as being too academic, lack of political will, and lack of an

adequate coordinating framework has been recognized as major barriers to the production and

use of biogas (Ngumah et.al, 2013).

Adeoti et al. (2000), recognize that the development and utilization of biogas technology

remained unpopular in Nigeria, partly because of lack of information on its economic viability.

Akinbami et al. (2001) used a three scenario analysis to examine the future prospects of biogas

in Nigeria. Results showed that high capital investment cost, type of design and materials for
building the plant and socio–cultural factors like low level of literacy were potential barriers to

the adoption and dissemination of biogas technology in Nigeria. Adeoti et al. (2000), recognize

that the development and utilization of biogas technology remained unpopular in Nigeria, partly

because of lack of information on its economic viability.

Ani (2014) identified and explained five major challenges of biogas productions as follows:

a. Poor Planning of Construction Sites

Site planning is an important factor. This comprises design issues concerning the

construction, the gas distribution system, the feedstock storage, and as well as the utilization

of by-products and the appropriate location. The size of the biogas plant has to be suitable for

the context. If the plant is over dimensioned, the economic efficiency of the biogas plant

decreases and the microbiological activity will be low.

b. Lack of Financial Capabilities

Lack of financial capabilities to invest in biogas plants remain one of the biggest challenges.

A small household based biogas plant with a volume 68m3 costs around N85,000 –

N120,000.00. These figures are from China where the Chinese government also have

subsidies making the investment even lower. Half of the investment is subsidised and the

yields from the power plant will give an estimated yearly revenue of around N24,000.00

when taking into account savings from buying firewood and electricity, produced fertilizer

etc. This makes the payback time less than two years in this example. This is not affordable

for most rural households, even in poor urban areas.

 c. Lack of Public Support

Public support is very important in the promotion of biogas. If the people don't have

confidence in investing in biogas they will continue to use diesel fuel and other none

renewable energy that are already available. Spreading information about biogas and it's

positive effects is important. One approach is for the government to implement pilot biogas

projects in rural agricultural areas to show case the benefits of biogas technology. This is

xactly what Avenam Links International is doing by constructing a 1,500 m3 biogas plant in

phases.

d. Lack of Effective and Clear Policies

The lacks of effective and clear policies are a major hurdle to overcome in the dissemination of

biogas technology. Governments need to actively set policies that will promote biogas usage and

encourage collaboration with governmental organisations (GO) and non-governmental

organisations (NGO). If the Nigeria Government has little capacity of financing biogas projects

collaboration with GOs and NGOs can increase chances of foreign funding and technological

import. If government don't have policies to aid biogas promotion, eg. subsidies and loans, it will

be much harder for local entrepreneurs and organisations to build biogas digesters for poor rural

households.

e. Technical Problems

There are several technical problems that can arise.

i. If there are heavy rains, biogas digesters that are below ground can get flooded

and as a result have to be drained which adds to the maintenance time and costs.

This can easily be avoided with better site design planning when the biogas plant

is built.
 ii. Other technical issues are mostly related to bad maintenance. A common

problem is that pipes get blocked due to lack of service. Leakage is also a problem

that is not unusual with fixed dome biogas plants. Methane (biogas) is a

poisonous gas as and an aggressive GHG.

Sambo et al (2016) examined failed projects in Nigeria and found that the under listed were the

major reasons for the malfunctioning of the biogas plants:

i. Poor, imprecise construction techniques,

ii. Poor choice of materials due to

iii. Inexperienced contractors and consultants

iv. Unsatisfactory technology

v. Inadequate repairs and maintenance

vi. Improper mixing of feed stock and over or

vii. Under feeding of the plant.

Sambo et al (2016) noted that:

i. Some of the State Government who has invested in the construction of the pilot plants

that have failed has lost faith in the technology and not willing to promote it financially.

ii. Banks do not have confidence in the industry because there are few or no plant in

operation where they can work in an see the viability of the technology.

iii. There are few stakeholders/Entrepreneur in biogas who can help to promote quality as

well as quantity that can help boost confidence, which can help in expanding this

technology into a widespread and sustainable industry in Nigeria.

The switch to biogas for cooking energy in is not without challenges, currently, low per-capita

incomes and a lack of awareness of the benefits of more sustainable fuels provide an important

barrier in Nigeria and other African countries.

2.2.8 Biogas Technology and its Process

Biogas technology is the use of biological process, in the absence of oxygen, for the breakdown

of organic matter into biogas and high quality fertilizer. Biogas technology is a “Carbon neutral

process” meaning it neither adds nor removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (Martin,

2010). Biogas is a renewable substitute fuel for fossil fuel which is made from nontoxic,

biodegradable renewable sources such as animal wastes, agricultural wastes, crop, domestic

waste, and industrial waste (Omer et al., 2002; Ukpabi et al., 201). Biogas is produced by

anaerobic digestion which is an engineered biochemical process that mineralises organic

substrates, e.g. agro-industrial wastes, to methane and carbon dioxide through a series of

reactions mediated by a consortium of micro-organisms under anaerobic condition (Joaquin et

al., 2008; Colussi et al., 2012). The activity of anaerobic digestion process depends on various

factors like temperature, pH, and concentration of substrate/nutrients, agitation, and pre-

treatment of feedstock, hydraulic retention time and carbon: nitrogen ratio (Yadvika et al., 2004;

Sreenivas et al., 2010; Alvydas et al., 2012; Umar et al., 2013). Potentially, this technology is a

significant and profitable way of mitigating global climate change.

According to Alaimo and Marshall (2010), biogas technology is carried out using a biological

engine known as biogas plants. The Biogas plant keeps and helps maintain conditions for natural

biological process to take place optimally to yield the desired results. Biogas plants consist of the

Bioreactor, Gas storage vessel and the Utility points. Once the process begins it continues

indefinitely as long as wastes are added daily in optimum conditions into the biogas plant as long
as integrity maintained. The process is odorless with the daily production of biogas, fertilizer and

mineralized water.

Biogas plants come in various designs (horizontal, vertical and underground) and can be built

with different materials such as clay and cement blocks, steel, reinforced concrete and stainless

steel. Biogas plants come with a guaranteed life span of 10 –30 yrs. The various designs to be

implemented are dependent on site requirement.

Today, there are several different techniques for producing biogas and several models and

designs of biogas machines and plants now exist. Nevertheless, the concept remains simple and

the same. The heart of any biogas system or production arrangement is known as a biodigester

(or simply a ‘digester’). A digester is a sealed and airtight tank or container (usually made of

concrete or plastic) that behaves like the stomach of a human being. It collects waste (raw

materials) and ‘digests’ it with the help of billions of bacteria.

As mentioned above, for biogas to be produced, this digestion must happen in the absence of

oxygen (scientifically known as ‘anaerobic digestion’). The valuable by-product of this digestion

process is methane, the cooking gas that we so desperately need. The methane gas that is

produced usually rises and builds up at the top of the digester. A gas pipe is attached to the top of

the digester to carry the produced gas back into the house (usually the kitchen) where it is used

as fuel for cooking and heating (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2: The Visual Representation of Biogas Production and How it Works

Other parts of a biogas system include a feeder pipe, through which the waste materials (from the

toilet, kitchen and other sources) enter the digester. There is also an overflow pipe or tank that

ensures that the pressure inside the digester remains within safe limits. The final other interesting

part of a biogas plant is an outlet or collection pipe for the solid and liquid residue that is left

behind after the digestion process. This residue (also known as ‘slurry’) is commonly referred to

as a ‘biofertilizer’ because it is very rich in nitrogen and phosphorus which makes it a good

manure/fertilizer for your garden or small farm.

Biogas technology is an aspect of Biomass energy production as earlier stated. Biomass is

understood to mean all land and water plants, their wastes and by-products, farmyard wastes

(including manures) and the wastes and by-products resulting from the transformation of these

plants and what they produce. Biomass wastes are generally organic wastes. Hussaina (2002)

explained that the production of biomass is primarily from the process of photosynthesis (the

capture and conversion of sunlight by plants. What the biogas technology actually does is to

unlock energy stored by plants from the sun). In reality no new energy is created but transformed

from one form to the other.

The raw materials for biogas include most agricultural and other organic wastes. In Nigeria

biogas can be produced from animal and human excreta, crop residue, poultry droppings, cow,

pig, and horse dung ( Hussaina, 2002; Abdulkarim and Maikano,2008). For applications on a

larger scale, feedstock such as sewage sludge from waste water treatment plants, wet agricultural

residues and the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (MSW) can be collected and used.

Biogas can be used for all applications designed for natural gas, given a certain upgrading of its

quality (IEA Bioenergy Task 37, 2005).Upgrading can be done to a level compatible with natural

gas (‘green gas’) by cleaning (removal of H2S, ammonia and some hydrocarbons from the

biogas) and by increasing the methane share (by removing the CO2). (Welink et al., 2007).

In the report of Ani (2014), small domestic biogas system will typically consist of the following

components:

i. Feedstock: Applicable feed stocks include all land and water plants e.g. crops, grasses,

and water hyacinth e.t.c. Wastes and by-products of plants agricultural residues after

harvest and processing which include vegetable wastes, wastes from food processing
 industries, paper, kitchen wastes, crop stalks e.t.c. Farmyard wastes, livestock wastes and

human wastes including poultry, piggery, rams, sheep, goats, grass cutters, rabbits and

cow wastes. Cassava peels and leaves, palm fibers and remnants that are usually burnt.

Also included are abattoir wastes, meat and fish packing plants, fruit processing plants

e.t.c. The raw materials for biogas include liquid, slurry, semi-solid and solid manure or

waste can all be used for biogas production.

ii. Anaerobic digester: The digester is the component of the manure management system

that optimizes naturally occurring anaerobic bacteria to decompose and treat the manure

while producing biogas.

iii. Effluent storage: The products of the anaerobic digestion of manure in digesters are

biogas and effluent. The effluent is a stabilized organic solution that has value as a

fertilizer and other potential uses. Waste storage facilities are required to store treated

effluent because the nutrients in the effluent cannot be applied to land and crops year

round.

iv. Gas handling: piping; gas pump or blower; gas meter; pressure regulator; and

condensate drain(s).

v. Gas use: a cooker or boiler (EPA, 2010).

Biogas technology is a renewable, alternative and sustainable form of energy and will help

alleviate Nigeria’s energy needs. Not only does biogas technology, help produce an alternative

energy source; it also helps in maintaining the environment and improving health conditions.

Thus, biogas technology is both a resource and environmental biotechnology.

CHAPTER THREE
 STUDY AREA AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 The Study Area

3.1.1 Location

The study area is Keffi Local Government Area, in Nasarawa State and it is located witin

Lat 8˚, 51and 9o 25’ N and Long 7˚52’ 80401 E. It has an area of 138 km² and a population of

92,664 at the 2006 census. It is bound by Karu, in the west by Kokona , in the south by Nasarawa

Local Government Area (Figure 3.1).

3.1.2 Climate

The study area is under the influence of two major weather conditions, namely: the rainy season

which starts in April and ends in September with its peak in July/August; and the dry season

which begins in October and ends in March. The annual rainfall recorded ranges between

1250mm to 1500 mm while the annual temperature is 32-35 oC, with February to April being the

hottest periods of the year Barberand Stuckey (1999). By February and March, the river channels

are almost totally dry, providing easy access to outcrops exposed by the rivers. The climatic

condition of Keffi Local Government Area is very favourable to biogas production especially

with the regard to high temperature. It has been noted that tropical climate and high temperature

enhances biogas production Ituen, et al. (2017).

3.1.3 Relief and drainage

Keffi and its environs are situated in a highly undulating terrain. The Basement Complex rocks

constitute the highlands while the schist rocks occupy the valleys. The highest elevation within

the area is the Maloni Hill. This hill is part of a NE-SW trending range of hills which flanks

Keffi main town, especially around the Emirs palace, to the west, standing at an elevation of

Nasarawa Road Dumpsite

Keffi
Local Government Boundary
about 1340ft (402m). A plateau/hill range system which runs E-W from the western margin of

Keffi Local Government Area through Kokona Local Government Area forms part of the

Kokona- Nasarawa Eggon plateau/hill ranges. It underlies the following villages; Akora, Gandun

Sarki, Dari, Gurku Toni, Angoro, Anzo, Kudaru, Mada and ends in Wana where the elevation is

highest. The study area is drained by two rivers which form a dendritic drainage pattern. The

rivers are Anto, and Mada rivers. These rivers empty into the Nasarawa river which is the main

water course in the study area in Nasarawa State. They all form tributaries to the Benue River to

the south.

3.1.4 Soils and Vegetation

Silty sand and silty clay units form the dominant soil types within.

These soil types are a consequence of the weathering of the granitic

basement complex rocks and schistose rocks, respectively.

Combined with the climatic conditions, these soil types typically

support mostly cereals farming and animal grazing, which is the

main occupation of the natives of Keffi Local Government Area.

The study area lies within the Savanna belt of Nigeria characterized by preponderance of tall

grasses dotted by few giant trees, except for the river channels which support rain-forest

vegetation characterized by deciduous trees.

The soil type and vegetation is very relevant in biogas production. This is because the soils in

Keffi Local Government Area supports many crops which their waste has been found very useful

as biogas substrates examples include cassava, yam, rice, maize, guinea corn, beans, soya beans,

sugar-cane, banana and millet.

3.1.5 Population and Land Uses

The population of Keffi Local Government Area in the last census in 2006 was 92,550 and has

been projected to124, 900 in 2016 (National Population Commission (NPC undated). This shows

increase of 32550 people approximately (35%) in 10 years which gives 3.5% annual growth rate.

Therefore, the population in 2018 should be 133,643 people based on 3.5% annual growth rate.

The population is made up many tribes like Eggon, Mada, Hausa, Fulani, Igbo, Yoruba, Tiv and

others. Agriculture is the major land use in Keffi Local Government Area flowed by residential,

commercial, educational, administrative, religious and others. Farming is the main occupation of

the people of Keffi and crops produced include cassava, yam, rice, maize, guinea corn, beans,

soya beans, sugar-cane, banana and millet. Apart from crop production, animal rearing is also

practice especially by the Fulani people residing in the area. The people of Keffi in addition to

farming also engaged in a divert trade, manufacturing and few craft and entertainment industry.

Having seen that there is rapid population in Keffi Local Government Area and that Agriculture

is the major land use, it is worthy to say that there is huge future for Biogas production in the

area. Rapid population is a major cause of cooking energy shortage and deforestation. However

agricultural wastes provide substrates for biogas production as alternative for cooking energy to

meet the demand of the rapid growing population. Moreover, rapid population growth ensures

adequate labour needed for biogas production. High population growth also leads to more waste

generation and overstretching of the prevailing cooking energy. Thus, converting waste to energy

is very significant in Keffi Local Government Area owning to the population and land uses.

3.2 Research Methodology

3.2.1 Reconnaissance Survey

A reconnaissance survey was carried out to get an insight into the settlement pattern, population,

major economic activities, environmental and socioeconomic conditions of the area, waste

management, cooking energy sources and challenges, language and cultural ethics (dos and

don’ts).

However, knowledge of population determined the number of questionnaire to be administered

while knowledge of language(s) determined the language(s) to administer questionnaire.

Moreover insight on the settlement pattern determined the spatial scope of the study and places

of questionnaire administration. Four (4) wards (Gangare tudu, Jigwada, kofar goriya and

Sabongari) were identified to have higher dependency on fuel wood for cooking than others. The

Common languages in Keffi Local Government Area are Hausa and English languages. Thus,

questionnaires were administered in Hausa and English language.

3.2.2 Sources of Data

For the purpose of this research, data will be collected from both primary and secondary sources.

Primary sources of data will be both qualitative and quantitative and are data that will be

obtained through questionnaire survey, observation and interview methods. Data that will be

obtained through these primary sources include data on: (i) prevailing energy sources examples

cost, availability and effects of household energy sources; (ii) organic waste generation- quantity

of organic waste generated per household per a day (iii) availability of water (iii) availability of

sunshine (iv) availability of labour and others.

3.2.2.1 Secondary Sources of Data

Data that will be collected from internet, review of text books, journals, thesis, published seminar

papers, and other published materials, reports of commissions/ organizations are from secondary
sources. Data that will be obtained from secondary sources include data on: cost of biogas

production and population of the study area.

3.2.3 Methods and Techniques of Data Collection

Methods that will use for data collection include questionnaire survey, observation and

interview. Techniques employed for data collection include photo camera and sound recorder.

3.2.3.1Questionnaire Survey

One set of structured closed ended questionnaires was prepared based on the study objectives.

The questionnaires were in five parts. First part of the questionnaires deals with the socio-

economic characteristics of respondents; the second part deals with identification of cooking

energy sources in the study area; the third part deals with cost of prevailing cooking energy; the

fourth part deals with the feasibility of biogas production from organic waste in the study area

and part five deals with the potentials constraining factors of biogas production from organic

waste in the study area.

Four hundred copies of structured closed ended questionnaires will be administered to

households orally. Although, questionnaire is written in English language, it will be administered

in English and local language Hausa. This is to allow those that don’t understand English

language to participate. Structured closed ended questionnaires help to reduce flaws and enhance

quantification. It is also useful to identify the needs and views of a large number of people in a

standard format. However, it does not allow personal opinions which may be useful.

3.2.3.2 The interview methods

Oral interview will be used to derive information that cannot be derived via other means. The

interview will offer the respondents opportunity to speak freely and share their experiences on

sources cooking energy. The questions will be unstructured and open ended to give the
interviewees opportunity to provide much detailed explanation about the prevailing cooking

energy sources, organic waste availability and challenges on both cooking energy supply and

waste management in a conservational manner. The respondents may provide facts, opinions

about topic of study.

3.2.3.4 Photo Camera and Sound Recorder

A Photo camera and sound recorder are cell phone applications that will used to enhance data

collection. Photo camera will be used to take photographs of identified cooking energy sources

and available organic wastes while sound recorder will be used to record response of

questionnaire respondents.

3.2.4 Sampling Technique

Purposive and systematic random sampling will be used in selection of households to administer
questionnaire. Firstly, purposive sample was used to select four (4) wards (Gangare tudu,
Jigwada, kofar goriya and Sabongari).The selections of these wards were based on predominance
of fuel wood use in these communities than others. Purposive sampling method was adopted in
the study to selected flood disaster preparedness measures practiced by flood prone households.
McMillan and Schumacher (1997) describe purposive sampling as “selecting information-rich
cases for study in-depth” when one wants to understand something about those cases without
needing or desiring to generalize to all cases. In this technique, the researcher chooses the sample
based on appropriateness for the study. The choice of this method is based on the fact that
sample units have particular features or characteristics which will enable detailed exploration and
understanding of the central themes and puzzles which the researcher wishes to study” (Ritchie,
Lewis and Elam 2003). Locations were sought where there had been significant fuel wood use,
so that respondents would have been affected by fuel wood use or were likely to have some
awareness of the fuel wood use effects in what might be considered their ‘local community”.
Secondly, systematic sampling technique will be employed to select samples of households from

the four wards. A systematic sampling technique gives equal opportunity to any household

within the selected communities. Three houses interval will be used to select households to

administer questionnaire.

3.2.5 Population and Sample Size

The population of Keffi Local Government Area in the last census in 2006 was 92,550 and has

been projected to124, 900 in 2016 (National Population Commission (NPC undated). This shows

increase of 32550 people approximately (35%) in 10 years which gives 3.5% annual growth rate.

Therefore, the population in 2018 is 133,643 people. Therefore, the sample frame is 133643 from

which sample size were determined.

3.2.5.1 Sample Size

Sample sizes were determined by Yamane (1973) a standard statistical formula:

S= _____ ______

2+N(ME)2
where s = sample size N = population ME = margin of error allowed (0.05).

= 133643/2+133643(0.05)2

= 133643/2+133643(0.0025)

= 133643/2+334.11

=133643/336.11

=399.99 ≈ 400

Therefore, a total of four hundred (400) samples will be selected from the four (4) wards

(Gangare tudu, Jigwada, kofar goriya and Sabongari). Purposely selected based on their high

dependency of fuel wood for cooking and high availability of agricultural (organic) wastes. The

distributions of questionnaire across these four (4) communities will be based on their population

size collected from Keffi Local Government Council NPC office (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1: Sample Size for Questionnaire Administration

S/NO SELECTED Population Size NOS OF

LGA QUESTIONAIRE

ADMINISTERED

1 Gangare tudu % OF SAMPLE

11648 90 24.4

2 Jigwada 10245 85 20

3 Kofar goriya 12,245 123 29.6

4 Sabongari 11654 100 26

Source of Population Data: Keffi Local Government Council NPC office

3.2.5 Sampling Technique

Purposive and systematic random sampling will be used in selection of households to administer

questionnaire. Purposive sample is useful in selecting sample for a peculiar reason. Firstly,

purposive sample was used to select four (4) wards (Sabo-layi, Angwa- Kaje, Angwat-Tiv and

Dadin-Kowa). The selections of these communities were based on predominance of fuel wood

use in these communities than others. Secondly, systematic sampling technique will be employed

to select samples of households from the four wards. A systematic sampling technique gives

equal opportunity to any household within the selected communities. Three houses interval will

be used to select households to administer questionnaire.

3.2.6 Analysis of Data

Data collected will be analysed based on the objectives as follows:

i. identified sources of cooking energy in the study area will be presented in frequency

distribution table and Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA) will used to determine if there

is significance difference in the mean distribution of the various energy sources used

by households in the study area in order to determine which is the most cooking

energy source.

ii. analyse the cost-benefit implication of biogas production and use in Keffi LGA, the

net present cost (NPC) of household biogas plant will be calculated and compared

with the cost of prevailing cooking energy in the study area using Cost Benefit

Analysis (CBA). CBA is analysis which quantifies in monetary terms as many of the

costs and benefits of a proposal as feasible, including items for which the market does
 not provide a satisfactory measure of economic value. CBA consist of a multiple

stages.

iii. identify factors that will promote biogas production in Keffi Local Government Area

(LGA). This will be presented in frequency distribution table after which the mode

will be found and coefficient of variation will be used to show if there is variation in

affirmation of factors that will promote biogas production in Keffi Local Government

Area among the four wards.

iv. assess factors constraining the adoption of production of biogas from organic waste

in Keffi Local Government Area (LGA). This will be presented in frequency

distribution table after which the mode will be found and Analysis Of Variance

(ANOVA) will used to determine if there is significant difference in the affirmation

factors ( environmental, social-cultural and economic) that constrain adoption biogas

production in Keffi Local Government Area among the four wards.

References

Abbey, A.T. 2005. Biogas in Uganda: A new experience. Leisa, 21:13-15.

Abdulkarim B. I. and Maikano H. (2015) Refining of bio-gas produce from biomass (cow- dung)

by removing H2S and CO2, B. Eng Degree project, Federal Univ. of Technol., Minna,

Nigeria, p. 1-15, 2001.

Abila N (2012) Biofuels development and adoption in Nigeria: synthesis of drivers, incentives

and enablers.EnergyPolicy2012;43:387–95. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.enpol.

Adeoti O., Ilori M. O., Oyebisi T. O and Adekoya L. O (2000) Engineering design and
Economic evaluation of a family–sized biogas project in Nigeria. Technovation 20, 103-
108.

Africa Energy Policy Research Network (AFREPREN, 2004) Data and Statistics on Renewable
and Rural Energy Sub-Saharan Africa. Part VIII, Nairobi, Kenya.

Akinbami J. F. K. , Ilori M. O., Oyebisi T. O., Oyebisi I. O., Adeoti O. (2001) Biogas energy use
in Nigeria: current status, future prospects and policy implications. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 5, 97–112.

Alaimo, Peter and Amanda-Lynn Marshall (2010) "Useful Products from Complex Starting

Materials: Common Chemicals from Biomass Feedstocks" Chemistry – A European

Journal 15 4970–4980.http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/technology/2012/T46.pdf

Ali I. Naibbi and Richard G. Healey (2013) Northern Nigeria’s Dependence on Fuel wood:

alternative? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 68:73-193.

Amigun B., Sigamoney R., von Blottnitz H., (2008) Commercialization of biofuel industry in
Africa: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 12, 690-711.

Amigun B.,von Blottnitz H (2007) Investigation of scale economies for African biogas
installations. Energy Conversion and Management 48, 3090-3094.

Amigun, B. Parawira W., Musango J. K., Aboyade A. O. and Badmos A. S. (2012) Anaerobic

Biogas Generation for Rural Area Energy Provision in Africa, Biogas, Dr. Sunil Kumar

(Ed.), InTech, Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/biogas/anaerobic-

biogas-generation-for-rural-areaenergy-provision-in-africa.

Amigun, b. von Blottnitz, H. 2010. Capacity-cost and location-cost analyses for biogas plants

in Africa. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55, 63-73.

Amigun, B. Parawira W., Musango J. K., Aboyade A. O. and Badmos A. S. (2012) Anaerobic
 Biogas Generation for Rural Area Energy Provision in Africa, Biogas, Dr. Sunil Kumar

(Ed.), InTech, Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/biogas/anaerobic-

biogas-generation-for-rural-areaenergy-provision-in-africa.

Ani Nina Chioma (2014) biogas technology Reasons why the industry is being undermined in

Nigeria. Seminar on "Biogas”.www.avenamlinks.com.

Anthony Manoni Mshandete and Wilson Parawira C (2009) Biogas technology research in

selected sub-Saharan African countries – A review. African Journal of Biotechnology

Vol. 8 (2), pp. 116-125.

Arnold, M., Kohlin, G., Persson, R., Shepherd, G. (2006) Fuelwood revisited. What has

changed in the last decade? Center for International Forestry Research Occasional
Paper, No. 39.

Audu, E.B (2013) Fuel Wood Consumption and Desertification in Nigeria. International Journal

of Science and Technology Volume 3 No.1. http://www.ejournalofsciences.org.

Babanyara, Y.Y. and Saleh U.F., (2010). Urbanisation and the Choice of Fuel Wood as a Source
of Energy in Nigeria. J. of Hum. Ecol., 31(1): 19-26.

Bailey J. E. and Ollis D. F. (2007) Biochemical Engineering Fundamentals, McGraw-Hill

Kogakushe Ltd., Tokyo, p. 847, 943-946.

Barber, W.P. and Stuckey, D.C. (1999) The use of anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR) for

wastewater treatment: A Review. Water Research, 33, 1559 -1578.

Bhat P. R., Chanakya H. N and Ravindranath H. N (2001) Biogas Plant dissemination: success
story of Sirsi, India, Energy for Sustainable Development 1, 39-46.
Billon, P (2005): The Geopolitics of Resource Wars. Retrieved on: 2015-04-05.

Bioenergy, 25, 197-207.

Biomass Energy Center (2012) Biomassenergycentre.org.uk. Retrieved on 2012-02-28

Biswas W. K., Lucas D. J. N., (1997) Economic Viability of Biogas Technology in a Bangladesh

Village. Energy 22, 763-770.

Bras. R. and Zootec (2012) Potential of biogas and methane production from anaerobic

digestion of poultry slaughterhouse effluent.

Bromley, Daniel W. (2008): sustainability. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd

Edition. Business Dictionary .com:

Brown, V. (2006) Biogas: a bright idea for Africa. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114-300.

Canadian Agricultural Energy End Use Data and Analysis Centre (CAEEDAC, 1999): The
Economics of Biogas in the Hog Industry, A Report Prepared for Natural Resources
Canada (NRCan), The Canadian Agricultural Energy End Use Data and Analysis Centre
CAEEDAC), Fall: http://www.usask.ca/agriculture/caedac/PDF/HOGS.pdf

Caputo A. C., Palumbo M., Pelagagge P. M., Scacchia F. (2005) Economics of biomass energy
utilization in combustion and gasification plants: effects of logistic variables, Biomass
and Bioenergy 28, 35-51.
Chukwu, I. E. W. (2001) Agricultural sustainability and farmers’ decisions at farm level. In

city, Tanzania. Resources Conservation and Recycling 42, 183-203.

Costanza, R and Patten, B.C. (1995). Defining and predicting sustainability. Ecological

Economics 15 (3): 193–196 .

Dangogo, S. and Fernado, C. (1986) A simple biogas plant with additional gas storage system.

Nigerian J. Solar Energ. 5: 138141.

Davidson, O. R. (1992) Energy issues in Sub-Saharan Africa: Future Directions. Annual

Day D. L., Chen T. H., Anderson J.C., Steinberg M. P., (1990) Biogas for Small Farms in Kenya.
Biomass 21, 83-99.
Derek Markham (2015) Home-sized biogas unit turns organic waste into cooking fuel and

fertilizer, for under $900. HomeBiogas.

Deublien, D. and Steinhauser, A. (2008) Biogas From Waste and Renewable Resources, 27-83.

Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH Co.KGaA.

DFID (2002) Energy for the poor. http://www.ecn.nl/fileadmin/ecn/units/bs/JEPP/EnergyForthe

Poor.

Duggirala B ( 2010) Analyzing Sustainable Energy Opportunities for a Small Scale Off-Grid

https://umanitoba.ca/institutes/natural.../Masters%20Thesis%20Duggirala%202010.pdf

EPA, (2010) Market Opportunities for Biogas Recovery Systems.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/.../biogas_recovery_systems_screenres.pdf

er/biomass/biomass.asp.

Erdogdu E., (2008) An expose of bioenergy and its potential and utilization in Turkey. Energy

Policy 36, 2182-2190.

FAO (1992) Biogas processes for sustainable development.

www.fao.org/docrep/t0541e/T0541E00.htm

Fellner, J., Cencic, O. and Rechberger, H. (2007): A New Method to Determine the Ratio of

Electricity Production from Fossil and Biogenic Sources in Waste-to-Energy Plants. In:

Environmental Science and Technology, 41(7): 2579-2586

Florin Bujac K (2013) Evaluating the potential of renewable energy sources in Romania.

projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/43947478/master_thesis_florin_bujac.pdf.

Gautam R., Baral S., Herat S.(2009) Biogas as a sustainable energy source in Nepal: Present
status and future challenges, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13, 248–252.

Gebrezgabher Solomie A (2010) Economic analysis of anaerobic digestion—A case of Green

power biogas plant in The Netherlands. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences

Volume 57, Issue 2.

Girard P (2002). Charcoal production and use in Africa: What Future? Unasylva 211(53):30-34.

Gregory Clark and David Jacks (2010). "Coal and the Industrial Revolution, 1700-1869" (pdf).

GTZ (1999) Biogas digest volume1.http://www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/en-biogas.

Hall D. O., Rosillo-Calle F., deGroot P., (1992) Biomass Energy, Lessons from Case studies in
developing Countries. Energy Policy, Renewable Series, 63-73.

Han J.L., Mol A.P.J., Yonglong L., Zhang L (2008) Small-scale fuelwood projects in rural
China—lessons to be learnt. Energ y Policy 36, 2154–2162. Instensifying livestock and
fuel production in Vietnam by making better use of local resources. In: Proceedings of
the national seminar- Workshop in Sustalication House, Ho Chi Minh, pp. 9-16.

Haruna Gujba, Yacob Mulugetta and Adisa Azapagic (2015) Household Cooking Sector in

Nigeria: Environmental and Economic Sustainability Assessment.www.mdpi.com/journal

resources.
Herbert, Lewis (2007) "Centenary History of Waste and Waste Managers in London and South

East England" (PDF). Chartered Institution of Wastes Management.

Hussaina H.(2002)Refining of bio-gas produce from biomass (cow-dung) by removing H2S and

CO2, PGD project, Federal Univ. of Technol., Minna, Nigeria, p. 17-20 and 41-43.

IEA Bioenergy, Task 37(2005) IEA Bioenergy Task 37 Country Report Summary

Finalwww.ieabioenergy.com/.../IEA-Bioenergy-Task-37-Country-Report-Summary-2.

www.ieabioenergy.com/task/energy-from-biogas/.
IEA, (2012) Energy from Biogas and Landfill Gas. Working Group
.www.ieabioenergy.com/task/energy-from-biogas/.
IEA, Bioenergy Task, (2010) Energy Technology Perspectives. “Three E’s” of balanced energy
policy making: energy security, economic development,and environmental protection.
in Africa. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55, 63-73.

Iniyan S., Jagadeesan T. R., 1997. A Comparative Study of Critical factors influencing the
Renewable Energy Systems Use in the Indian Context. Renewable Energy 3, 299- 317.

Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES, 2010) Biogas from Waste and Renewable

Resources: An Introduction. https://books.google.com.ng/books?isbn=3527643710

Institute for Science in Society (ISIS, 2006) Biogas from Waste and Renewable Resources: An

Introduction. https://books.google.com.ng/books.

International Energy Agency (IEA 2006) Bioenergy Production by Anaerobic Digestion: Using

Agricultural Waste. https://books.google.com.ng/books

International Energy Agency IEA Bioenergy (2005) Energy from Biogas.

www.ieabioenergy.com/task/energy-from-biogas/.

Itanyi E. I. and Ugwuanyi J.K (2014) Extraction of Wood for Fuel: a Threat to Landscape
 Conservation in Nigeria. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org

Vol.4, No.1.

Ituen, E. E, John N. M and Bassey B. E (2017) Biogas Production from Organic Waste in Akwa

Ibom State of Nigeria. Springer Nature. Available at https://springer.com.

Iza, J., Colleeran, E., Paris, J.M. and Wu, W.M. (1991) International workshop on anaerobic

treatment technology for municipal and industrial wastewaters: summary paper.

Water Science and Technology, 24, 1-7.www.intechopen.com.

Jingura R. M., Matengaifa R., 2008. The potential for energy production from crop residues in
Zimbabwe, Biomass and Bioenergy 32, 1287–1292.

John W. and Twidell A. (2007) Renewable energy resources, D Weirs ELBS/E and F.N. Span

Ltd., p. 310-320, 1987.

Kandpal Tara Chandra ,Bharati Joshi and Chandra Shekhar Sinha (1991)Economics of family

sized biogas plants in India.

https://www.researchgate.net/.../245158861_Economics_of_family_sized_biogas_plants..
.

Karekezi S., (2002a) Renewables in Africa - meeting the energy needs of the poor. Energy

Policy 30, 1059-1069.

Karekezi S., Kithyoma W., (2002b) Renewable energy strategies for rural Africa: is a PV-led

renewable energy strategy the right approach for providing modern energy to the rural

poor of sub-Saharan Africa? Energy Policy 30, 1071- 1086.

Khanal, S.K. (2008) Anaerobic Biotechnology for Bioenergy Production: Principles and

Applications. Wiley-Blackwell.

Khatiwada (2012) Potential to transform waste to biogas in La Paz and El Alto, Bolivia. kth.diva-
portal.org/smash/record.jsf
Kituyi E (2002). “Towards Sustainable Charcoal Production and Use: a Systems Approach.”
Proceedings of a Regional Workshop on Wood fuel Policy and Legislation in Eastern and
Southern Africa.RELMA, Nairobi, Kenya.

Kobtzeff, O. (2000):Environmental Security and Civil Society. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger,

pp. 219–296. London: Island Press.

Kofi-Opata E (2013) Alternative Energy and the Developmental State in Ghana.

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/toledo1368117768/inline

Kratzeisen et al., (2010) Upcycling wastes with biogas production: An exergy and

economic.www.sgc.se/ckfinder/userfiles/files/LiU43.pdf.

Lantz M., Mattias S., Björnsson L., Börjesson L (2007) the prospects for an expansion of biogas

systems in Sweden - Incentives, barriers and potentials. Energy Policy 35, 1830-1843.

Lawal Nadabo S (2010) Renewable Energy as a Solution to Nigerian Energy Crisis –

Theseushttps://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/15198/final%20thesis.pdf.

Lems, S., Van Der Kooi, H.J., De Swaan Arons, J. (2004) Thermodynamics and the feasibility of

sustainable technology Use.

Lettinga, G. (1995) Anaerobic digestion and wastewater treatment systems. Antonie van

Leeuwenhoek, 67, 3-28.

Lettinga, G. (2001) Digestion and degradation, air for life. Water Science and Technology, 44(8).

Lima (2014) The suitability of waste residues for Energy-from-waste (EfW) Technologies.

International The 27th International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and

Management.

Maconachie, R., Tanko, A. & Zakariya, M. (2009) Descending the energy ladder? Oil price

shocks and domestic manure and other biomass materials. Biomass and Bioenergy, 9,

303-314.

Marchaim, U. (2012) Biogas Processes for Sustainable Development, 1-99. FAO.

Martin M and Parsapour A (2012) Upcycling wastes with biogas production: An exergy and

economic analysis. Fourth International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste

Martin, Marshall A. (2010)"First generation biofuels compete". New Biotechnology. 27 (5):

596–608.

Masekoameng KE, Simaleng TE and Saidi T. (2005) Journal of Energy in Southern Africa 3: 49.

Mbohwa, C and Fukuda, S. (2003) Electricity from baggasse in Zimbabwe. Biomass and

Biomass and Bioenergy, 25, 197-207.

Mbuligwe, S., E., & Kassenga, G., R. (2004). Feasibility and strategies for anaerobic digestion of

solid waste for energy production in Dar es Salaam city, Tanzania. Resources

Conservation and Recycling 42, 183-203.

Mekonnen, A., Köhlin, G (2008) Determinants of Household Fuel Choice in major cities in
 Ethiopia. Environment for Development. Discussion Paper Series.

http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/EfD-DP-08-18.pdf.Ethiopia. Environment for

Development. Discussion Paper Series. http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/EfD-DP-08-

18.pdf.

Møller, F. and Martinsen; L. (2013) Socio-economic evaluation of selected biogas technologies.

Aarhus University. Danish Centre for Environment and Energy Scientific Report No. 62.
pp 231.
Momodu, I. Momodu (2013) Economic Policy Research Department, Nigerian Institute of Social

and Economic Research (NISER), Ibadan-Nigeria. Mediterranean Journal of Social

Sciences MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy Vol 4 No 8.

Murphy, J.T (200)1Making the energy transition in rural East Africa: Leapfrogging an

alternative? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 68:73-193.

Mwakaje A.G. (2007) Dairy farming and biogas use in Rungwe district, South-west Tanzania:

Network (SUSAN) held at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA).

Ngbogo Vincent and Ebaei Ifoma (2006) Biogas Production: Family Economic Empowerment.

Paper presented at the 7Ih Annual National Conference of Home Economic Research

Association of Nigeria (HERAN), at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Ngumah, Chima C. Jude N. Ogbulie, Justina C. Orji, and Ekpewerechi S. Amadi (2013) Biogas
Potential of Organic Waste In Nigeria. Published by JUEE Environmental Engineering.
www.journal-uee.org.

Ni Ji-Quin, Nyns E., 1996. New concept for evaluation of Biogas Management in developing
countries. Energy Conversion and Management.
Nigeria: Environmental and Economic Sustainability Assessment.www.mdpi.com/journal

Nylund.N-O and Koponen.K. (2013). Fuel and Technology Alternatives for Buses. Overall

Energy Efficiency and Emission Performance. IEA Bioenergy Task 46.

Odeh I., Yohanis Y. G., Norton B (2006) Economic viability of photovoltaic water pumping
systems, Solar Energy 80, 850–860.

Oguntoke O, Opeolu B O and Babatunde N (2010) Indoor air pollution and health risks among

rural dwellers in Odeda area, South-Western Nigeria. Ethiopian Journal of Environmental

Studies and Management 3: 39-46.

Ojolo S.J., Bamgboue A.L., Ogunsina B.S. and Oke S.A. (2008)Analytical approach for

predicting biogas generation in a municipal solid waste anaerobic digester. Iran J.

Environ. Health Sci. Eng; 5(3).

Olasunkanmi M. B and Ogunjobi J.O. (2015) Determinants of Household Energy Consumption

in Nigeria: Evidence from Ogun State. The International Journal Research publication.

www.theinternationaljournal.org >RJSSM:Volume:04,Number:12.

Omer A. M., Fadalla Y (2003) Biogas energy technology in Sudan. Renewable Energy 28, 499-
507.

Omer, T.O and Fedalla M.O. (2002). Engineering design and Economic Evaluation of a family

sized biogas project in Nigeria. Technovation.

Onoja Anthony O. and Emodi Angela I. (2012) Economic Analysis of Fuel wood Production and

Consumption: Evidence from a Nigerian State. British Journal of Management and

Economics 2(1): www.sciencedomain.org.

Onyebuchi E.I.(1989) Alternative energy strategies for the developing world’s domestic use: A

case study of Nigerian household’s final use patterns and preferences. The Energy Journal
10(3):121–138.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Onyeneke R. U, Nwajiuba C. U. and Nwosu C. S (2015) Determinants of Fuel wood

Consumption among Farming Households in Imo State, Nigeria. Journal of Environment

Protection and Sustainable DevelopmentVol. 1, No. 2.

Oyedepo ,Sunday Olayinka (2012) Energy and sustainable development in Nigeria: the way

Forward.

Purohit P., Kandpal T. C (2007)Techno-economics of biogas-based water pumping in India: An

attempt to internalize CO2 emissions mitigation and other economic benefits, Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 11, 1208–1226.

Ragauskas A.J, Williams CK, Davison B.H, Britovse k.G,Cairney J and Eckert C et al(2006).

The path forward for biofuels and biomaterials. Science 311:484–9. http:

//dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1114736.

Rao P. S. C., Miller J. B., Wang D. W., Byrne J. B (2009) Energy-microfinance intervention for

below poverty line households in India. Energy Policy, (2009), doi:

10.1016/j.enpol.2008.12.039.

Rao, S., Singh, S., Singh, A. and Sodha, M. (2000) Bioenergy Conversion Studies of the

Organic Fraction of MSW: Assessment of Ultimate Bioenergy Production Potential of

Municipal Garbage. Appl. Energ. 66(1): 11-18.

Rao, S., Singh, S., Singh, A. and Sodha, M. (2000) Bioenergy Conversion Studies of the

Organic Fraction of MSW: Assessment of Ultimate Bioenergy Production Potential of

Municipal Garbage. Appl. Energ. 66(1): 11-18.

Reynolds. Douglas B. "Energy Grades and Historic Economic Growth" (2008) Hubbert Peak of

Oil Production website. Archived from the original on 22 December 2008. Retrieved

2008-12-14.

Riva C, Schievano A, D'Imporzano G and Adani F (2014) Production costs and operative
 margins in electric energy generation from biogas. Full-scale case studies in Italy. US

National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health.

Ronald F., Drobstein R. and Edwin H. (2012) Synthetics fuels, McGraw-Hill, p. 210-218 and

381-382.

Rubab S., Kandpal T. C., (1995) A methodology for financial evaluation of biogas technology in
India using cost functions, Biomass and Bioenergy 10, 11-23.
Sagary N (ed). Proceeding of the 6th scientific workshop of Sub-Saharan African

Network (SUSAN) held at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA),

Ibadan, Nigeria, August 23-27.

Sambo AS, Iloeje OCJ, Ojosu OJ, Olayande S, Yusuf AO(2006) Nigeria’s Experience on the

Application of IAEA‟s Energy Models (MAED & WASP) for National Energy Planning,
Paper presented during the Training Meeting /Workshop on Exchange of Experience in
Using IAEA’s Energy Models and Assessment of Further Training Needs. held at the
Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, Daejon, Republic of Korea; 2006. pp 24–28,
April pp 24–28,

Sambo A.S (2009): Strategic Developments in Renewable Energy in Nigeria. International

Association of Energy Economics 2009, 4: 15–19.

Sambo, A. S., Etonihu, A. C. and Mohammed, A. M. (2015)“Biogas Production From Co-

Digestion of Selected Agricultural Wastes in Nigeria”. International Journal of Research

– Granthaalayah, Vol. 3, No. 11.

Sambo, A.S (2005).Renewable Energy for Rural Development: The Nigerian

Perspective. ISESCO Science and

Schoene D, Killmann W, vonLüpke H and Loyche Wilkie M. (2007) Definitional issues relate

to reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries FAO;5:1–26.

Singh K. J., Sooch S. S (2004) Comparative study of economics of different models of family
 size biogas plants for state of Punjab, India. Energy Conversion & Management 45:1329-
1341.
Smith, K.R., Rogers, J. & Cowlin, S.C. (2005) Household fuels and ill-health in developing

countries: what improvements can be brought by LP gas (LPG)? Paris, France,

World LP Gas Association & Intermediate Technology Development Group.

Srinivasan S., 2008. Positive externalities of domestic biogas initiatives: Implications for
financing, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 12:1476-1484.

Sudarsan, K. G., and Mary P. Anupama (2006). "The Relevance of Biofuels." Current Science

90.6 (2006): 748. 18 Oct. 2009 <http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/mar252006/748a.pdf>.

Switzenbaum, M.S. (1995)Obstacles in the implementation of anaerobic treatment

technology. Bioresource Technology, 53, 255-262.

Tafdrup, S. (1995) viable energy production and waste recycling from anaerobic digestion.

Taleghani G., Kia A. S., (2005) Technical–economical analysis of the Saveh biogas power plant.
Renewable Energy 30: 441–446.
Tatlidil, F., Bayramoglu, Z. and Akturk, D. (2009) Animal Manure as One of the Main Biogas

Production Resources: Case of Turkey.J. Anim. and Vet. Adv. 8(2): 2473-2476, 2009.

The Carbon Trust (2014) "Waste to energy in Indonesia"

The path forward for biofuels and biomaterials. Science 311:484–9. http: /

/dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1114736.
Themelis, Nickolas J. (2003) an overview of the global waste-to-energy industry, Waste

Management World.

Tyagi T.H.(2009) Batch and multistage continuous ethanol fermentation of cellulose hydrolysate

and optimum design of fermentor by graphical analysis, Biotechnology and

Bioengineering, Vol. 22, Issue 9, p. 1044-1052.

Uellendahl H, Wang G, Møller H, Jørgensen U, Skiadas I.V, Gavala H.N and. Ahring B (2012)

Energy balance and cost-benefit analysis of biogas production from perennial energy

crops pretreated by wet oxidation. BioScience and Technology (BST) Research Group.

Ukpabi Chibueze, Ndukwe Okorie, Okoro Oriaku, John Isu and Eti Peters (2017) The

Production

of Biogas Using Cow Dung and Food Waste. International Journal of Materials and

Chemistry. 7(2): 21-24.

Walekhwa P. N., Mugisha J., Lars D., (2009) Biogas energy from family-sized digesters in
Uganda: Critical factors and policy implications, Energy Policy 37, 2754-2762.
Wall, G. (2010) On Exergy and Sustainable Development in Environmental Engineering. The

wastewater treatment: A Review. Water Research, 33, 1559 -1578.

Water Science and Technology, 24, 1-7.www.intechopen.com.

White L. P. and Plaskette L. G.(2011) Biomass as a fuel, Academic Press Inc. London Ltd.,

London, NW, p. 40-45.

White Roger (2006)"Trees and Woods: Myths and Realities" (doc). Lecture: The Essential Role
 of Forests and Wood in the Age of Iron. Commonwealth Forestry Association. Archived
from the original on 17 December 2008. Retrieved 2008-12-14.

Wilks Anna Rios (2014) Preliminary Cost Benefit Analysis of a Biogas Digester - Case study in

Solomon Islands. Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC). Applied Geoscience and

Technology Division (AGTD).

Wilks Anna Rios (2014) Preliminary Cost Benefit Analysis of a Biogas Digester - Case study in

Solomon Islands. Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC). Applied Geoscience and

Technology Division(AGTD).

Wilson D. C (1979) The uncertain costs of waste disposal and resource recovery. Resource

Recovery and Conservation 4, 261-299.

World Energy Council (WEC) (2004) Survey of World Energy

www.fao.org/docrep/t0541e/T0541E00.htm

Yadvika A.(2004) Enhancement of biogas production from solid substrates using different

techniques––a review.

Yiridoe E. K., Gordon R., Brown B. B., 2009. Nonmarket co-benefits and economic feasibility

of on-farm biogas energy production. Energy Policy 37, 1170-1179.

Zaku S. G, Kabir A., Tukur A. A. and Jimento I. G. (2013) Wood fuel consumption in Nigeria

and the energy ladder: A review of fuel wood use in Kaduna State. Journal of Petroleum
Technology and Alternative Fuels. http://www.academicjournals.org/JPTAF

Zaku S. G., Kabir A., Tukur A. A and Jimento I. G. (2013) Wood fuel consumption in Nigeria

and the energy ladder: A review of fuel wood use in Kaduna State. Academic Journals

Vol. 4(5), pp. 85-89, http://www.academicjournals.org/JPTAF.

 Nasarawa State University Keffi,

Faculty of Environmental Sciences

Department of Geography,

PhD Environmental Resource Management.

Research Questionnaire for Households.

Topic: Assessment of Biogas Potentials from Organic Waste in Keffi LGA of Nasarawa

State Nigeria.

This questionnaire is administered purely for academic research purposes and information

given will be treated as private and confidential. This research is being carried out in partial

fulfillment for the award of PhD in the Faculty of Environmental Sciences Nasarawa State
University, Keffi. Your honest opinion on this issue raised will be highly appreciated.

Thank you.
 Part I

Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

1.Age in years: (1) < 20 (2) 20-30 (3)31- 41 (4) 42-52 (5) 53-63 (6) 64 and above

2. Gender: (1) Male ( 2 ) Female

3. Marital status: (1) Single (2) Married (3) Widowed (4) Divorced (5) Separated

4. Educational qualification: (1) No formal education (2) Primary (3) Secondary (4) Tertiary

(5) others

5. Are employed? (1) Yes (2) No

6. If yes in No. 5 above, by who (1) self-employed (2) Government (3) NGO (4) private

organisation

7. Average monthly income in Naira (1) < 18000 (2)18000 -54000 (3) 55000- 108000 (4)

109000 -145000 (5) 146000- 182000 (6) >182000

Part II

Sources of Cooking Energy in Keffi LGA

8. Which of these energy sources do your household use for cooking? (a) Fire wood (b)

Charcoal (c) Kerosene (d) Natural gas (e) Electricity (f) Methane (biogas).

9. How much on average do you spend on cooking energy per a day in Naira (a) 0-100 (b)

101-200 (c) 201-300 (d) 301-400 (e) 401-500 (f)501-600.

10. What can you say about the cost of your household cooking energy? (a) Very cheap (b)

cheap (c) costly (d) very costly.

11. How available is your cooking energy sources? (a) Readily available all the time (b)

Sometime scare (c) Most times scare.

12. What can you say about the heath impact of your cooking energy source(s)? (a) No

impact (b) causes cancer (c) causes respiratory diseases (d) others please specify.

13. Does your household cooking energy source(s) have effect on the environment? (a)

Yes (b) No

14. If yes in the number 13 above, what are the environmental effects of your cooking

energy source(s). (a) Emission of greenhouse gases (b) enhancement of climate change (c)

increase global worming (d) release and stain of smoke (e) others please specify.

15. Does your cooking energy influence your social life? (a) Yes (b) No

16. If yes in the number 15 above, how? (a)Time consuming (b) people make jet of you (c)

deprive of social activities (d) others please specify.

17. What factor(s) determine your choice of energy sources? (a) Economic factors eg price,

income etc (b) environmental factors eg being environmental friendly like burning cleanly,

renewable etc (c) social factors eg family size, saves time, healthier etc.

18. Do your household desire for alternative cooking energy? (a) Yes (b) No

19. If yes in number 18 above, why desire for other sources? (a) Cost (b) health safety (c)

environmental safety (d) scarcity of the current energy sources.

20. Which other sources do you desire? (a) Fire wood (b) charcoal (c) kerosene (d) natural gas

(e) electricity (f) methane (biogas).

 Part III

Cost-Benefit Implication of Biogas Production and Use in Keffi LGA

21. Which of these economic benefits do you perceive of biogas production from organic waste?

(a) Provides cheaper energy and fertilizer (b) Provides additional income to farmers (c) Creates

job opportunities (d) Decentralizes energy generation and environmental protection.

22. Which of these environmental benefits do you perceive of biogas production from organic

waste? (a)Reduces emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) (b) Reduces nitrogen leaching into

ground and surface waters (c) Improves hygiene through the reduction of pathogens, worm eggs,

and flies (d)Reduces odour (e)Controlled recycling/reduction of waste (f) Reduces deforestation.

23. Which of these social benefits do you perceive of biogas production from organic waste?

(a) Smoke-free and ash-free kitchen (b) spared the burden of gathering firewood (c) Is a healthy

source.

Part IV

Factors That Will Promote Biogas Production in Keffi Local Government Area (LGA)

23. Which of the following organic waste does your household produce? (a) Food wastes

(b). Farmyard wastes (c) human wastes (d) livestock wastes including poultry, piggery,

rams, sheep, goats, grass cutters, rabbits and cow wastes (e) others please specify….

24. Does your household generate up to 1 kilogram of food waste per a day ? (a) Yes (b)

No
25. Does your household generate up to 1 kilogram of human waste per a day? (a) Yes (b)

No

26 Does your household generate up to 1 kilogram of livestock wastes per a day? (a) Yes

(b) No

27. How many kilogram of organic waste does your household generate per a day?

28. Availability of water (a) Low (b) Moderate (c) High

i. Where do get your water for domestic uses?

ii. How much does it cost per litre?

iii. Number of days or months per year of water shortage?

iv. Where is water sourced during these drought times?

v. What is the price of this water?

vi. how many hours does it take to collect it during these times?

29. Availability of labour (a) Low (b) Moderate (c) High

30. Availability of plumbers (a) Low (b) Moderate (c) High

31.Availability of engineers (a) Low (b) Moderate (c) High

32 Availability of organic waste (a) Low (b) Moderate (c) High

Part V

Factors Constraining the Adoption of Biogas Production From Organic Waste in

Keffi Local Government Area (LGA)

33. Are you will to install biogas for cooking? (a) Yes (b) No
34. If no in 33 above why? (a) cost (b) lack of substrate (c) lacks of effective and clear

policies (d) climatic factor (e) inadequate knowledge of the technology (f) inadequate

water supply (h) others please specify….