1. No category

PANGEA
Alliance for Rural Electrification
Information Paper
RELEVANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION
POSSIBILITIES FOR BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION MARKETS
Photo credits: All Power Labs, Ankur Scientific Energy Technologies, Porc Chicaron, Selectra.
An information paper for energy decision makers by the
Alliance for Rural Electrification (ARE) and Pangea
Information Paper
RELEVANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION POSSIBILITIES
FOR BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION MARKETS
1
PANGEA
Alliance for Rural Electrification
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY3
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS3
CONCLUSIONS4
II. SCOPE OF THE PAPER5
III. OVERVIEW OF BIOENERGY AND THEIR PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR OFF-GRID PURPOSES 6
IV. MODELS FOR THE USE OF BIOENERGY IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION 7
MARKET-BASED MODEL7
FEE-FOR-SERVICE MODEL7
DEALER MODEL8
LEASE MODEL8
COMMUNITY-BASED MODEL8
UTILITY MODEL8
HYBRID MODELS8
V. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS
9
VI. ANNEX 1: EXAMPLES OF BIOENERGY PROJECTS FOR RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AROUND THE WORLD
11
ALL POWER LABS11
ANKUR SCIENTIFIC ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.12
JENNY’S PORC CHICARON14
SELECTRA15
VII. REFERENCES16
Information Paper
RELEVANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION POSSIBILITIES
FOR BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION MARKETS
2
PANGEA
Alliance for Rural Electrification
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
According to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon1, “energy is the golden thread that connects economic growth, social
equity and an environment that allows the world to thrive”. Equally important is the role renewable energies play in
combating the environmental challenges the world is facing. Due to the sheer abundance of biomass often available
in developing countries, this paper aims to showcase how the effective use of bioenergy technologies can contribute to
sustainable economic growth, and provide access to electricity for millions of people in rural areas.
Photo credits: Engineers Without Borders
The paper is jointly prepared by the Alliance for Rural Electrification and Partners for Euro-African Green Energy (PANGEA),
and aims to encourage interested stakeholders from the public and private sector to make use of lessons learnt and to
combine them with innovate models to utilise bioenergy technologies for electrification purposes in areas where there
is no conflict with nutrition and linked issues. The paper shows the added value of available technology solutions based
on various types of clean bioenergies and appropriate ways to implement them for the benefit of electrification for rural
communities in the developing world. It looks at modern uses for solid biomass, liquid biofuels and biogas along with
practical examples and best practices of the various bioenergy-based business models currently being implemented for
rural energy access as well as opportunities for further expansion.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
•
•
1
ensure skilled job creation, local value addition, low
costs for technology and increased regional trade.
Adequate support from public authorities and
donors is needed in order to speed up the
implementation of sustainable bioenergy projects
for rural energy access with an emphasis on
improving the “bankability” of these technologies,
to access low cost capital. Even though appropriate
technologies exist that are proven in the market and
often provide low risk, uptake is limited due to a lack
of awareness by investors and communities alike.
That lack of awareness translates to perceived risk
by investors and banks, inhibiting implementation
of otherwise viable projects that could be providing
rural energy.
By setting policy targets for bioenergy-based
rural energy, policymakers can help to eliminate
that perceived risk and instead encourage
investors and communities to take a closer look
at available options and technologies. Key is to
attract the attention of global bioenergy technology
developers that the region is “open for business”,
driving demand for bioenergy-based technologies,
which will in turn open up the portfolio of available
technologies while also driving down prices through
competition. A major aim should be to encourage
local manufacturing of bioenergy technologies to
•
Those policy targets should be matched with
awareness creation campaigns in rural areas mixed
with technical assistance to show communities how
to use the technologies and implement them in
their local situations. Direct support to communitybased and national entrepreneurs to develop and
implement business plans using these technologies
will be key to ensuring uptake at a fast pace and
help to make up for lost time.
•
Support for community financing models that will
allow farmers to participate not only in the supply
of feedstock and the purchase of energy, but also
in the value creation that comes along with the
investment itself must not be overlooked. Bioenergy
provides vast opportunities for value addition to
agriculture, allowing rural communities to not
only grow crops but also process, package and
store them using their crops and waste, meaning
that many bioenergy technologies, targets and
programmes can be co-financed or co-located in
rural development and agricultural programmes.
•
Mechanisms for supporting Research &
Development is a key aspect of ensuring sustainable
Ki-moon, B. (2014). Sustainable Energy ‘Golden Thread’ Connecting Economic Growth, Increased Social Equity, Secretary-General Tells Ministerial Meeting. Seoul
http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sgsm15839.doc.htm
Information Paper
RELEVANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION POSSIBILITIES
FOR BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION MARKETS
3
PANGEA
Alliance for Rural Electrification
technology transfer from foreign companies to local
communities while also encouraging development
of home-grown technologies. Many technologies
may be appropriate but need to be adapted to the
local context, or scales need to be reduced so they
can match local energy demand from available
resources. For example, co-generation of electricity
from sugarcane bagasse is common among large
sugarcane mills but is not yet economically viable at
the community level. Local knowledge can help to
adapt other technologies that may not have been
trialled in rural areas of developing countries but
could provide opportunities for additional energy
production and access.
projects relies on the financial structure of the
project as well as the economic and regulatory
features of the location where bioenergy
technologies are to be installed.
•
Biofuels present lower ratios in Net Energy
Balance (NEB) and fewer GHG emissions per NEB
in comparison with petrol and diesel. However,
noteworthy differences exist within the wide variety
of biofuels depending on the feedstock employed
for production and the production method. Ethanol
made from corn can have fewer environmental
benefits utilising some production methods and
more benefits when utilising others, while many
vegetal oil-made biodiesel (from oil seeds) and
cellulosic ethanol can have the most advantages.
•
Off-grid systems paired with sustainable
agriculture to grow biomass for the systems
foster rural communities and can create income
opportunities for a wide range of stakeholders
through the sale of biomass for fuel. They fit well
into existing local structures, contribute to the
betterment of education by improving electricity
provision for schools, strengthen health by
providing power to medical facilities and reduce
indoor air pollution when used for cooking, as
well as enhancing women’s participation in the
community.
•
Biomass can greatly enhance electrification levels
in rural areas. Crop waste is an abundant, lowcost source of biomass in the short-term, while
underutilised areas can also be planted with
energy crops to provide additional resources in the
medium- and long-term. For example, only 12% of
arable land in Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia
is used for crop production, providing significant
opportunities for crop expansion. Figures such as
this provide evidence for the potential of bioenergy
expansion and make this kind of energy feasible
to operate off-grid schemes in the same rural
environment.
CONCLUSIONS
•
There is a broad range of bioenergy-based
alternatives including solid biomass, liquid fuels
as well as biogas available to improve access to
reliable, efficient and price competitive access to
energy and services. Traditional solid biomass
represents 70% of the Africa’s current total final
energy consumption. Roughly 90% of traditional
biomass is used by households, mostly for cooking
purposes. The population relying on traditional use
of solid biomass has tracked population growth
fairly closely indicating the need for significant
uptake in the use of modern bioenergy.
•
The choice of the right bioenergy technology and
the kind of feedstock used for the conversion of
biomass into energy is determined by a number
of factors such as reliable access to sustainable
feedstock, economic and technical feasibility of
using one technology over another, human capital
to manage the technology, local weather conditions,
and a sustainable business structure. As with all
bioenergy projects, biomass-powered off-grid
projects are site-specific in nature.
•
The successful implementation of an appropriate
business model for biomass-powered off-grid
2
International Energy Agency, “Africa Energy Outlook”, 2014, pp. 3, 13 and 122
3
Laishley, R. (2009). Is Africa’s land up for grabs?: foreign acquisitions: some opportunities, but many see threats. Africa Renewal; Vol. 23. No. 3; p. 4: New York
Information Paper
RELEVANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION POSSIBILITIES
FOR BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION MARKETS
4
PANGEA
Alliance for Rural Electrification
II. SCOPE OF THE PAPER
Given the fact that the International Energy Agency (IEA) has identified Sub-Saharan Africa as the region in the world with
the highest need for energy access - according to latest estimates about 530 million people will remain without energy
access by 2040 – the paper pays specific attention to this important region when looking into implementation and
replication opportunities. Yet in most cases information given will be applicable to other developing regions.
To help compensate the negative impacts traditional
biomass energies including charcoal can have
for humans and environment, the paper shows
implications of modern bioenergy technologies for the
economy, environment, and society. Issues relating to
environmental and social sustainability in a bioenergy
context are examined, from greenhouse gas emissions
and lifecycles of various types of bioenergy to impacts
on land use and women. Economic sustainability is dealt
with the sections reviewing the various types of business
models currently used in the African bioenergy context.
produced bioenergy, but lack of awareness regarding
these technologies as well as uncertainty over the
sustainability of bioenergy as a whole have been major
impediments to further utilisation of biomass-based
energy in Africa and globally. Better understanding of the
benefits and challenges of bioenergy by policymakers and
donors alike is key to ensuring confidence in these uses
and technologies so that NGOs and the private sector can
move forward quickly with their implementation, making
up for lost time and ensuring that IEA’s prediction of
continued energy poverty does not come to pass.
What is clear is that enormous opportunities abound
for the electrification of rural areas utilising sustainably
Information Paper
RELEVANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION POSSIBILITIES
FOR BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION MARKETS
5
PANGEA
Alliance for Rural Electrification
III. OVERVIEW OF BIOENERGY AND THEIR PRODUCTION
TECHNOLOGIES FOR OFF-GRID PURPOSES
Off-grid electricity generation is a time and cost efficient way to electrify rural areas. In general, decentralised generation
and distribution can be differentiated between mini-grids (small-scale generation from 10kW to 10MW), micro-grids
(1kW to 10kW) and stand-alone systems based on different types of renewable energies.
All of them can be set up from scratch (“greenfield”)
or contribute to the hybridisation of existing electricity
generators driven by fossil fuels (“brownfield”). Regarding
the latter, bioenergy power can be added to these
generators and thus reduce the release of carbon
emissions while decreasing reliance on imported fuels
that are highly volatile in price.
According to IEA and Food and Agricultural Organisation
(FAO) existing biofuels in the market of renewables
production can be differentiated as follows:
•
Primary solid biomass can be employed through
traditional or modern uses. Traditional uses are
basically the burning of fuelwood, charcoal, dung
and crop residues to obtain energy that operates
cooking stoves in households. Modern uses involve
the industrialisation of the biomass treatment and
less GHG emissions. Black liquor, commercial heat,
power generation and wood pellet heating systems
are the main modern uses of biomass.
Type of bioenergy
Solid biomass
(modern)
Advantages
•
•
Liquid biofuels
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Biogas
•
•
•
•
•
•
Information Paper
•
Liquid biofuels are the most employed modern
bioenergy type. First generation biofuels consist
of ethanol from natural sources rich in sugar and
starch and biodiesel from oil seeds and animal fats.
Animal feeds and oils are typical by-products of
cereal-based biofuel production. Second generation
biofuels refers to cellulosic ethanol, pyrolosis oil,
and alcohols obtained from thermo-mechanical
processes. Third generation biofuel comes from
algae.
•
Biogas is a gaseous biofuel produced through the
process of anaerobic digestion. Landfill waste,
sewage sludge, animal slurries and waste from
agrofood industries such as animal processing in
abattoirs and breweries are organic feedstocks to
generate biogas. The fermentation under which
these sources are treated enables sequestering
methane and carbon dioxide (CO2) that provide
electricity, heating, lighting and fuel for domestic
stoves. Slurry-type fertiliser is produced as a byproduct of the anaerobic digestion process.
Disadvantages
Wide feedstock
availability
Processing technologies
are often less expensive
Wide range of uses
Simple distillation process
from sugars and starch
Vegetable oils can be
used directly instead of
biodiesel
Wide variety of feedstock
types
Small-scale technologies
available
Animal feed by-products
Clean cooking without
harmful fumes or smoke
Wide range of feedstocks
Relatively simple
technology
Low cost technologies
available
Good for sanitation
Fertiliser as by-product
Can be used to clean
water
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Present uses
Burning in open fires
releases carbon
Lots of feedstock
required to make
viable
•
•
•
Biodiesel has short
storage life
Safety precautions
are vital
Limited number
of small-scale
technology providers
End-uses are fuelspecific
Ethanol must be
denatured to
ensure no human
consumption
•
•
Maintenance
requirements
Gas storage safety
requirements
Distribution
challenges
End-uses are fuelspecific
•
•
Cooking
Boilers
Combined
heat and
power (CHP)
New potential uses
•
•
•
•
•
Transport
•
Chemical
and industrial
•
applications
Limited
cooking use
Combined
heat and
power
•
•
•
Mini-CHP
Mini-grids
Power agricultural
processing
Co-location with
non-agri industry
Wider cooking use
Electricity
production
Balance crop
surpluses
Transport
Cooking
Industrial colocation
RELEVANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION POSSIBILITIES
FOR BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION MARKETS
6
PANGEA
Alliance for Rural Electrification
IV. MODELS FOR THE USE OF BIOENERGY IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION
As Chesbrough4 said, “technology by itself has no single objective value. The economic value of a technology remains
latent until it is commercialised in some way via a business model”. This section is therefore aimed at reviewing the
literature on models frequently used in rural electrification strategies5.
operational management system structure that
deals with several non-interconnected mini-grids
spread across different villages that are relatively
close each other. Thus overheads, labour costs and
transport costs associated with the mini-grid system
are reduced.
Given the increasing prevalence and huge potential of
clean energy mini-grids to electrify rural areas, particular
attention will be given to this technology, which empowers
a wide variety of renewable energy technologies.
MARKET-BASED MODEL
A private entity deals with all stages of the off-grid
systems, from planning and building to management,
operation and maintenance. The active involvement of
the private sector in rural electrification requires above
all a sound policy and regulatory framework as well as
access to finance. In this context and as these markets
are often still in their early stages, private equity and
commercial funding usually needs to be complemented
by government and donor support, e.g. through grants,
subsidies, near-market finance and risk mitigation
mechanisms.
The following scalable business models are designed
to meet the challenge of having little revenue from endusers at each site while facing inevitable management
and operational costs.
•
•
•
The franchise model allows the transfer of
management costs to the franchiser and minimises
this burden for the franchisee. With a large number of
franchisees, economies of scale in theory outweigh
the additional management costs of the franchising
structure.
The ABC model (Anchor customers – Local Businesses
– Customers) relies on the possibility that (A) anchor
customers such as crop suppliers, food supply chain
SMEs and customers of biomass-sourced heating
can provide revenues to the investors; mini-grids
can be installed to support the development of (B)
local businesses and the rest of the (C) customers
also enjoy the supply of mini-grid energy after the
aforementioned groups have been serviced. For
example, MTN in Nigeria uses biodiesel provided
by Biodiesel Nigeria to power some of its cell phone
towers, whereby excess power is supplied to the
community hosting the tower.
The clustering approach advocates for one
•
The local entrepreneur approach is successful in
the sense that the local entrepreneur is based on
site. This business actor deals with the operation of
the system and owns parts of the generation and
distribution assets. The entrepreneur usually has an
extensive social network and background in the local
reality that helps to reduce risk management costs of
foreign investors.
Examples include ethanol distribution for clean cooking,
whereby the stoves are sold to customers and then
containers of denatured ethanol, bottles of ethanol gel
or biodiesel are sold in one-litre volumes. This model was
demonstrated by Ndzilo in Mozambique using ethanol
where stoves and fuel are sold at kiosks throughout the
capital Maputo, while SME Funds in Nigeria using ethanol
gel that is distributed through an entrepreneur dealer
network.
These broad approaches are aimed at optimising the
financial blueprint of rural electrification projects. Further
business models, considering the ownership of energy
systems, the role of customers and methods of paying
the energy used, have been developed. A number of
these models are described as follows.
FEE-FOR-SERVICE MODEL
Energy service companies (ESCOs)6 invest in and own
the off-grid power generating system and supplies
electricity to rural customers. It also deals with operation,
maintenance and replacement of the power system. The
customers pay for the electricity they use either based on
metering (kW/h) or a fixed charge. The electricity tariffs
are usually financially viable to cover the costs.
Co-generation from bagasse or other crop residues is
technically possible at smaller scales than sugar mills for
use in mini-grids such as the fee-for-service model but
4
Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and Barriers. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), pp.354-363.
5
A comprehensive analysis and review of models and costs of rural electrification is included in RECP. Africa-EU Renewable Energy Cooperation Programme, (2014).
Mini-grid Policy Toolkit. Policy and Business Frameworks for Successful Mini-grid Roll-outs. European Union Energy Initiative Partnership Dialogue Facility (EUEI PDF). This section extensively borrows from this publication.
6
“An energy service company (ESCO) is a company that is engaged in developing, installing and financing comprehensive, performance-based projects, typically 5–10 years in duration, centred around improving the energy efficiency or load reduction of facilities owned or operated by customers. ESCOs are seen as an important vehicle for promoting energy efficiency around the world, especially in those countries experiencing increased competition and privatisation in the electric utility business” (Vine 2005)
Information Paper
RELEVANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION POSSIBILITIES
FOR BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION MARKETS
7
PANGEA
Alliance for Rural Electrification
the practice is not yet widely developed. Other potential
models include power generation from gen-sets fueled
by ethanol or biodiesel to provide electricity services to
customers. Planetary Power’s HyGen can provide electricity
with 50% or less of the fuel consumption compared to
typical diesel gen-sets but has the benefit of using ethanol,
biodiesel or biogas while also tying in with solar panels
and/or mini-wind turbines.
DEALER MODEL
Customers own the power systems, which are usually rural
households or a facility owner (e.g. rice miller). In doing so,
customers assume responsibility for all operational and
replacement costs. Once the system is bought, only the
O&M needs to be paid for. There are no tariffs since the
customer is also the owner.
In Kenya, rose growers are using biomass-powered boilers
provided by Thermax India to produce the heating and
cooling needed to keep young rose plants at a constant
15-17 °C to ensure proper plant growth and higher yields.
In tea-growing and pineapple-growing areas, Thermax
also provides crop waste-to-energy technology providing
facilities with all of their energy needs.
LEASE MODEL
Unlike the dealer model, the equipment is owned by
the lessor (usually an ESCO) and transferred to the
customer when the leasing period finishes. The lessor
is still responsible for maintenance and repair, while the
customer pays a monthly rental fee during the leasing
period.
Technologies are under development to make it easier for
biomass to be used under a lease model. For example,
Planetary Power’s HyGen can be leased using just the fuel
option without the solar and wind options, while South
Africa’s Selectra is developing a container-based biogas
system that dairies can “plug and play” using a lease
option.
COMMUNITY-BASED MODEL
Members of rural communities are responsible for the
ownership, operation and management of an off-grid
system. A village committee and community cooperatives
are some of the forms under which rural communities’
participation is shaped. There is enormous opportunity
for farming communities to take advantage of biomassbased energy for their household lighting, cooking and
heating needs using crop and animal waste. In addition,
enough power can be produced to operate agricultural
processing machinery, allowing communities to add value
to their crops while also creating semi-skilled jobs.
7
In many cases, governments or non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) participate in the finance of this
business initiative (through grant-based funding) and the
delivering of technical support, which rural communities
usually do not have. It is important to stress the provision
of governmental funding. This could be 100% granted
from government or NGOs or through long-term soft
loans and community contributions in order to get the
project operating and off the ground.
UTILITY MODEL
In the utility model the utility is responsible for all
operations. The funding is usually secured from the
national treasury or government. Utilities operate minigrids in much the same way as the national electricity
network. Power is generated by the utility, fed into
the distribution grid and supplied to the consumers,
usually at the same rates paid by the utility’s customers
connected to its main grid. Thus, utilities usually crosssubsidise electricity tariffs for mini-grids.
Utilities, given adequate financial and human capacities
to manage mini-grids, could rapidly install a large
number of mini-grids in rural areas. However, utilities
usually do not invest voluntarily in mini-grids because
they often consider mini-grids as a non-core business.
Therefore, when utilities manage mini-grids, most of the
time they are directed to do so by the government. 7
Large-scale co-generation projects that produce
electricity from sugarcane baggase - a waste product
from the sugar production process - typically sell excess
power to the national grid, providing a stable though
often season supply of clean electricity to the grid while
providing an additional revenue source to the sugarcane
mill. Examples include Mumias Sugar in Kenya who
supplies 35MW of electricity annually at around US$
0.08 per kW/h, and Addax Bioenergy in Sierra Leone will
supply 15MW of electricity when it is fully commissioned
in 2016.
HYBRID MODELS
Hybrid models combine features of the utility model,
market-based model and community-based model.
Investment, ownership and operation of a mini-grid
might not be carried out by the same entity.
The Public Private Partnership approach is frequently
applied in rural electrification programmes. Public and
private collaboration can be set up in a wide variety of
ways. One example is when the public partner retains
ownership, either investing in the off-grid generation
system, or entering into a contract with a private partner
for the operation, maintenance and management of the
system.
RECP Africa-EU Renewable Energy Cooperation Programme, (2014). Mini-grid Policy Toolkit. Policy and Business Frameworks for Successful Mini-grid Roll-outs. European Union Energy Initiative Partnership Dialogue Facility (EUEI PDF).
Information Paper
RELEVANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION POSSIBILITIES
FOR BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION MARKETS
8
PANGEA
Alliance for Rural Electrification
V. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS
When speaking about the use of bioenergy in a sustainable way it is important to consider the environmental and
social impacts this may cause, which are explained here in alphabetical order.
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL
AND ANCHOR BUSINESSES
Contrary to the belief that the expansion of biofuel
production can lead to an increase of food prices and
other disadvantages to the local farmers, biofuels
actually increase food production, provide for the creation
of advanced jobs and modernise local infrastructure.8
This belief against biofuels could be partially true in the
case of some large-scale production depending on local
circumstances but rural electrification is commonly based
on small-scale projects where the previously mentioned
negative consequences are significantly reduced.
In smaller-scale projects, as there is not large-scale
production of agricultural feedstock, the potential impacts
on food commodity prices that lead small farmers to
poverty are limited or negated. In fact, tighter links
between the farmer and the biofuel producer are likely
to emerge in small-scale models so that the revenues
are concentrated in the rural environment. As regions
typically focus on the production of a limited variety
of crops, the volume of those crops are concentrated
in areas often isolated from major markets, creating
mini-markets where the onset of harvest boosts crop
availability far beyond immediate demand and as a
result weighs heavily on local prices. Removing surplus
crops from the that availability to produce energy raises
crop prices locally, benefiting the rest of the farming
community who receive more money for their produce,
while energy and animal feed by-products can be sold
locally or further afield, providing even more income to
the farmers and the community.
The most important feature of biomass-sourced offgrid systems is the improvement of market prospects
for anchor businesses such as telecom towers, health
and education providers, businesses related to the food
supply chain, etc. Integrating organic waste streams
such as crop and livestock waste or sanitation systems
into bioenergy installations co-located with anchor
businesses can provide the reliable access to energy
required for those businesses to succeed, making them
stronger in the face of competition with those still reliant
on expensive diesel generators or the unreliable national
grid. Utilising waste streams has the added benefit of
reducing environmental impact of industry.
Off-grid development encourages further research on
bioenergy technologies applied to households, such as
new types of digesters for biogas or integrated combinedheat systems for SMEs that can benefit from the surplus
energy not required by anchor businesses. Overall, new
sustainable market opportunities are possible to support
the development of thriving rural communities, boost
their incomes and, hence, overcome extreme poverty.
IMPACT ON EDUCATION
Within Sub-Saharan African countries, there is a wide gap
between rural and urban areas regarding education.
The young population in rural areas is more likely to not
attend school, fail to complete primary education and be
unemployed.9 Poor education premises are part of this
learning disadvantage between areas and have a direct
impact on rural poverty levels.
The accelerated development of sustainable bioenergy
projects to electrify rural areas can help solve this problem
by providing schools with adequate lighting, promoting
sanitation via biogas systems and by enabling the
development of new education centres. Biogas can also
be used for cooking, allowing schools to provide students
with meals that should encourage higher attendance.
With additional demand for low and medium-skilled jobs
resulting from biomass collection, processing and energy
production need for these workers will increase and
serve as a driver for youth to remain in school in order to
take advantage of these new opportunities.
IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Bioenergy production presents significant advantages
to fossil fuel use, although processes can include fossil
fuel use in some production aspects, and as such the
environmental impacts of such energy use should be
analysed. The same holds true for fossil fuel consumption
during feedstock production, impacts on water supplies
and land, as well as biodiversity.
Net Energy Balance10 is the ratio of energy contained in
the final biofuel (energy output) compared to the energy
used to produce it (energy input), and the charts below
show that tropical plants have the highest energy balance
due to growing in more ideal conditions using sunlight,
drier weather or rainfall. They are often cultivated
manually using less fossil-fuel energy for harvesting, and
8
PANGEA (2012). Annual report, p. 5.
9
Zhang, Y. (2006). Urban-Rural Literacy Gaps in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Roles of Socioeconomic Status and School Quality. COMP EDUC REV, 50(4), pp.581-602.
10
To learn more about life-cycle assessment (LCA) see Köpffer, W. (1997). Life cycle assessment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 4(4), pp.223-228.
Information Paper
RELEVANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION POSSIBILITIES
FOR BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION MARKETS
9
PANGEA
Alliance for Rural Electrification
inputs from fertilisers and pesticides are almost absent
(ICTSD, 2008). Sugarcane ethanol and Jatropha in SubSaharan African countries (not included in the charts) are
a good case in point. Because of the tropical climate – dry
conditions with occasional rainfall – Africa can grow these
crops that provide higher fuel content than the feedstocks
cultivated in temperate zones. Biodiesel produced from
Jatropha curcas represents a 72% savings in GHG
emissions compared to conventional diesel fuel and the
NEB is 4.7.11
1.4
Cellulosic
biodiesel
1.2
Soybean oil
biodiesel
1.0
NEB
0.8
0.6
Sugar cane
ethanol
Corn grain
biodiesel
Energy outputs:
Product
Co-product
Energy inputs:
Farming, harvesting and transport
Processing
0.4
0.2
Corn grain
ethanol
0
0
2
IMPACT ON SOCIAL SITUATION
Sugar cane
biodiesel
Cellulosic
ethanol
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
NEB ratio
GHG emissions per NEB
(grams per megajoule)
120
96.9
100 (100)
84.6
(87.3)
80
60
37.1
(38.3)
40
92.3
(100)
50.8
(61.7)
39.1
(40.3)
15.6
(19)
20
In developing countries the indirect land use change
(ILUC)12 impacts of biofuels are highly relevant and are
one of the most controversial subjects regarding biofuel
production. However, it is less of an issue in Africa and
even less so in small-scale operations. ILUC refers to
the release of carbon dioxide emissions resulting from
land use change brought about by the expansion of
croplands for biofuel production as demand for crops
grows beyond existing land use. On the other side, biofuel
production can make use of land, which is currently
unsuitable for food production due to its previous use
(e.g. landfills), thereby giving it a new purpose that can
create positive effects for the whole community without
increasing the overall carbon dioxide emissions.
42.4
(51.5)
15.1
(18.3)
Su
ga
r
G
a
ca soli
ne
n
Co
e
et
rn
h
an
gr
ai
ol
n
Ce
et
llu
ha
lo
no
si
l
c
et
ha
no
Su
l
ga
D
rc
ie
a
se
Co
n
l
bi
rn
od
gr
ie
ai
se
n
Ce
l
bi
llu
od
lo
ie
So
si
se
c
yb
l
ea biod
n
ie
oi
se
lb
l
io
di
es
el
0
Source: Caspeta and Nielsen (2013).
The cultivation of Jatropha can be suitable in some subSaharan African countries as the plant is drought tolerant,
but it should not be cultivated on a large scale on fertile lands
to avoid competition with food production. However, by
growing the Jatropha plants on small parcels local farmers
can take advantage of unused land and create an extra
source of income without harming the local biodiversity.
Four out of five people in Sub-Saharan Africa rely on
the traditional use of solid biomass, mainly fuelwood
used for cooking. The IEA13 predicts that this use will
increase by 40 % within 2040, which will increase energy
inefficiency and worsen household’s wellbeing. There
is a proven correlation between the use of traditional
biomass and poverty, and today a large proportion
of traditional biomass users live on less than US$2 a
day.14 With the expansion of off-grid systems propelled
by environmentally sustainable biofuels, biogas and
biomass for electricity production these people can
experience significant improvements for their local
economies, education and gender equality.
IMPACT ON WOMEN
When burned in open fires and basic traditional
cookstoves; wood, coal, charcoal, and other solid fuels
produce harmful smoke emissions that claim 4 million
lives annually through a range of diseases and injuries
– making household air pollution from cookstove smoke
the fourth greatest health risk in the world.15
An increase in the use of sustainable bioenergy,
particularly for clean electricity and clean smokeless
cookstoves, could also improve the equality and health
of women in developing countries as they would no
longer spend time collecting wood and charcoal,
sometimes in unsafe conflict areas and refugee camps,
to fuel hazardous and polluting cookstoves. Access to
clean cooking fuel would provide women extra time
for other activities instead of collecting cooking fuel,
while electricity would allow women more opportunity
for education as well as income generating activities,
empowering women and enabling them to take up
more leading roles in their rural community.
11
Ndong, R., Montrejaud-Vignoles, M., Saint Girons, O., Gabrielle, B., Pirot, R., Domergue, M. And Sablayrolles, C. (2009). Life cycle assessment of biofuels from Jatropha 12
For more information on indirect land use change see the International Food Policy Research Institute’s report Progress in estimates of ILUC with MIRAGE model.
13
International Energy Agency, “Africa Energy Outlook”, 2014, pp. 3, 13 and 122
14
Amigun, B. and et al., (2014). Anaerobic Biogas Generation for Rural Area Energy Provision in Africa. In: D. Sunil Kumar, ed., Biogas, 1st ed. InTech.
15
Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, (2014). Clean Cookstoves Can Save Lives & Empower Women. [online] Available at: http://www.cleancookstoves.org/resources/
curcas in West Africa: a field study. GCB Bioenergy, 1(3), pp.197-210.
fact-sheets/cookstoves-and-women-1.pdf [Accessed 3 Dec. 2014].
Information Paper
RELEVANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION POSSIBILITIES
FOR BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION MARKETS
10
PANGEA
Alliance for Rural Electrification
VI. ANNEX 1: EXAMPLES OF BIOENERGY PROJECTS FOR RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AROUND THE WORLD
ALL POWER LABS
50kW biomass power plant
Source: All Power Labs
Source: All Power Labs
Kakata, LIBERIA
Company description
All Power Labs is a Berkeley, CA based company that designs,
engineers, and manufactures compact biomass gasifers. Their
current core product is the Power Pallet.
The Power Pallet’s pioneering reactor design and thermal
relationship management have received multiple international
patents. They can operate on a wide range of waste agricultural
biomass products like wood chips, nut shells or corn cobs, with no
pelletising or briquetting of fuels required, and without the large
purification tanks and toxic byproducts of other designs.
The fully-assembled 18kW unit is easily transported by ordinary
pickup truck, requires minimal civil works to install, and can
be operated by locally-trained technicians. It combines highly
automated, computer controls with an easy to use and maintain
gasifier and engine genset. Multiple units can expand generation
in modular fashion. All design upgrades are reverse interoperable,
and software and best practices upgrades are shared free-ofcharge to customers.
Power Pallets can provide three-phase electricity sufficient to power
agricultural machinery at less than 1/3 the current cost of diesel.
Power can be generated at any time of day or in any season,
without need for battery storage. Power Pallets are now in use in
over 30 countries, filling the critical gap between household-level
solar lighting and charging products and centralised grid power.
Power Pallets have optional CHP capacity to also provide heating
and drying or motive power. The current list price of the Power
Pallet is US$1.75/watt of capacity, and can produce electricity for
little as US$.08/kW/h in direct feedstock and labour costs.
The challenge
Even before the recent Ebola crisis, Liberia had struggled to regain
its footing after two civil wars in recent dècades, and an almost
complete lack of electricity in rural areass. Grid power is only
available in parts of the captial Monrovia, at a rate of US$.57 per
kW/h, and off grid power from diesel can be as much as US$.70
per kW/h. While there is plenty of biomass available from expired
rubber tree plantations, there was no affordable, community
sized way to turn that biomass into energy.
The Renewable Solution
USAID sponsored the installation of a 50kW biomass energy power
plant and training center at the Booker Washington Institute, utilising
three Power Pallets, as part of the Liberia Energy Sector Support
Project (LESSP). The sponsorship also extended to the creation of a
Renewable Energy Center, to both House the power plant as well
as trained students in the school on their operation, and various
Information Paper
renewable tecnologies. The facility provides on demand energy for
half the campus, and the entire surrounding Jambo Village of 200
families.
They operate on wood chips from rubber trees, which no longer
have productive use and would otherwise be burned for disposal.
The school can now make power reliably, whenever needed,
without concern over availability of expensive diesel, and even
though the school was closed, throughout the entire Ebola crisis
the project was able to continue making power to serve the
surrounding community.
The benefits to the environment are three fold. First, the use of
biomass allows Booker Washington Institute (BWI) to avoid using
almost half their previous diesel consumption. Second, by using
rubber trees that would otherwise be burned, they avoid air
pollution. And third, using gasfication produces biochar, a stable
form of carbon that can be sequestered.
Project financing and costs:
USAID paid for the rehabilitation of the Building, installation of a
new grid, and a year long training and education program. The
Power Pallet component cost US$ 120,000. Including labour and
the purchase of biomass, the cost of energy produced at BWI is less
than US$ 0.20 per kW/h.
Project outcome:
The power plant continues to operate all day, every day school
is open. Due to the availability of reliable power, classes in
woodworking, auto repair, welding, and other energy intensive
activitie are able to take place. The waste biochar produced by
the Power Pallets is provided free of charge to classrooms at the
school for reblacking their chalkboards. Student operators who
have been trained at the facility are now able to find private sector
jobs operating similar projects, and commercial power sales in
Kakata are expected to begin in June, 2015.
Contact
Tom Price
Director of Strategic Initiatives
All Power Labs
[email protected]
Local Contact:
Vincent Igboeli, Project Manager
HV WoodGas Technology, Weavers Avenue, Paynesville, Montsserado, Liberia.
[email protected] - Phone:+231 886 80 90 22
www.allpowerlabs.com
RELEVANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION POSSIBILITIES
FOR BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION MARKETS
11
PANGEA
Alliance for Rural Electrification
ANKUR SCIENTIFIC ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.
1.2MW Biomass Power Plant
Source: Ankur
Sankheda, Vadodara, INDIA
Company description
Ankur Scientific Energy Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Baroda, are global
technology leaders dealing in renewable energy technologies for
over more than two and half decades and have created a leading
position in the area of biomass gasification systems. It is an ISO
9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 certified company. Its products
are CE certified. The company was founded by Dr. B.C. Jain, a gold
medalist from BITS, Pilani, a Double M.S., PhD and an M.B.A. from
M.I.T.
India’s Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) sought
the establishment of Model Investment Projects (MIPs) based
on Biomass Technologies for generation of Grid Quality Power
and “Removal of Barriers to Biomass Power Generation in
India”. The aim of the project was to accelerate the adoption of
environmentally sustainable biomass power technologies by
removing the barriers identified, thereby laying the foundation
for the large-scale commercialisation of biomass power through
increased access to financing.
The challenge
The major challenges faced were in biomass collection, its
storage and handling and its preprocessing and conveying.
Many different feedstock / biomass types were planned and
used from agri-residues like cotton stalks, tur stalks, castor stalks,
castor shells/husk, corn cobs, mango seeds etc. to different
types of woody biomass like Prosopis Juliflora, waste wood from
furniture making units, waste wood from timber units, firewood
branches and twigs etc. Each feedstock had its own challenges in
terms of handling, preprocessing / sizing / drying, conveying etc.
Opportunities for renewables:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Small plants of up to 2MW help in improving the voltage of
the 11kV Grid and in improving the power factor. The Grid
frequency stabilizes and limits T&D losses to a large extent
(about 7% losses are prevented).
Much greater probability of success and longer lifespan.
Creation of large scale employment for unemployed /
partially employed rural people.
Supports creation of a large number of small entrepreneurs
in rural areas.
Rural / 11kVA grids become net producers of electricity thus
ensuring uninterrupted power supply to rural areas.
Round-the-clock / on-demand generation of electricity and
hence ability to meet peak demand.
Very short gestation periods of a few months.
Almost 80% of the cost of generation is returned to the local
economy through purchase of biomass and local jobs.
Information Paper
•
•
•
•
Perennial and sustainable green power & mitigation of global
warming.
Increased, long term energy self-sufficiency.
Potential for Co-Generation through inclusion of cold chains in
the power projects.
Greening of barren and waste lands through production
of sturdy energy species, as small plants are conducive to
energy plantations, leading to afforestation.
Renewable solution:
Fuel Supply Linkage
The major reliance of biomass was on crop residues of the
common crops available near the project site, mainly cotton stalks,
tur (pigeon pea) stalks, castor stalks and corn cobs. The farmers
and villagers were very willingly giving their agri-residues which
also provided them some added revenues for their otherwise
waste that was generally burnt off on the fields.
Development of Entrepreneurs’ for Secured and Sustained Fuel Supply
During this process, Ankur Scientific also developed entrepreneurs
out of these farmers and villagers for secured and sustained fuel
supply. This aspect ensures the villagers and the farmers are
interested into the project apart from getting some additional
revenues towards the supply of their otherwise waste feed stocks.
They would then manage their own supply chain management on
a sustainable basis.
Technology
The waste heat recovery had been included in the 1.2MW Power
project, having two units of ‘Ankur’ Gasifiers along with three units
of 100% Producer Gas Engine Gensets to ensure high overall
efficiencies.
Waste Heat Recovery for VAM chiller
The “Ankur” Biomass Gasification system requires chilled water
for the heat exchanger to cool and condense the moisture in the
producer gas. To reduce the power requirement for the overall
auxiliaries, the waste heat / flue gas from one of the engine
exhaust was recovered and transferred to hot water through
a heat exchanger and the hot water was then being fed into a
VAM chiller to generate 36 TR chilling with a temperature profile
of 13 – 8 C°.
Waste Heat Recovery for Biomass Drying
As in the above case, the waste heat / flue gas from the two other
engine exhaust were utilised for biomass drying.
Utilisation of Charcoal / Bio char
The quantity of char produced was approx. 5% of weight of the
RELEVANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION POSSIBILITIES
FOR BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION MARKETS
12
PANGEA
Alliance for Rural Electrification
biomass used. Further, the char was discharged through the dry
ash char removal system and collected in bags, and hence no fly
ash is generated from ‘Ankur’ Gasifier. The char has a reasonably
high calorific value and can be useful as a fuel for small-scale
industries requiring thermal energy, which can then be sold off to
such units at a nominal price.
many different kinds of biomass / feedstocks were used, including
many different kinds of agri-residues and wastes that could
be used for setting up multiple systems such as decentralised,
distributed and small power plants of 1-2MW levels. Many of
these wastes have no current use and are simply wasted and
burnt off in the fields.
Briquetting of Char
The char as discharged from “Ankur” systems were segregated as
follows:
This was probably the first gasification project using a variety of
agri-residues with high moisture content and low bulk density.
Apart from establishing the supply chain mechanism for such
agri-residues, involving the local villagers, local entrepreneurs
were developed among the local villagers. Direct and indirect
employment of about 150 was generated. Most importantly,
about 80% of the revenue is returned to the local economy.
According to the company, the aim of the project has been
fulfilled, identifying and removing various barriers, and thereby
laying the foundation for the large scale commercialisation of
biomass power and accelerating the adoption of environmentally
sustainable biomass power technologies in the country.
•
Sizes above 10 mm were sold and also given to the villagers
for their daily cooking. Sizes below 1 mm were given to the
local farmers as bio char for soil addition as it increases the
fertility of the soil and thereby the yield. Sizes between 1 mm
and 10 mm were used for briquetting. A separate briquetting
machine was installed at the project site and the briquettes
were sold to industries for their thermal application while
part of the briquettes were given to the local villagers for
smokeless cooking.
Project financing and costs:
The total investment into the project then was around US$1.7
million, out of which subsidies were around US$445,000, bank
loans were about US$500,000 and the balance was provided by
Ankur Scientific.
Project outcome:
There were many challenges and issues which provided lessons
learned regarding the operations of a project of this kind, where so
Information Paper
Contact
Mr. Vipin Surana
Chief Executive Office & CFO
Phone: +91-265-2793098
[email protected]
www.ankurscientific.com
RELEVANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION POSSIBILITIES
FOR BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION MARKETS
13
PANGEA
Alliance for Rural Electrification
JENNY’S PORC CHICARON
Heat and electricity production from rice husk gasification in a SME of the
food sector in the Philippines
Daily logistics - Source: Elmar Steurer
Source: Elmar Steurer, August 2013
Gasification site - Source: Elmar Steurer
Sta. Maria, Province Bulacan, PHILIPPINES
Company description
Jenny’s Pork Chicharon is located in the Province Bulacan in the
northern part of Metro Manila and manufactures chicharon, which
is very popular in the Philippines. Chicharon is fried pork skin and is
typically used in local food (e. g. Pork Sisig) or as a snack.
The challenge
To run the oven used in the chicharon production, the required
heat was provided by a direct combustion of rice husks (see
top left photo). The direct combustion, however, leads to huge
amounts of ash and dust. Important to note is that the heating
costs account for the main part of the production costs. Heat
energy demand is 4500MW/h per year, covered by the direct
combustion of 1.25 tonnes rice husks. In addition a considerable
demand for electricity is needed for cutting and packaging
purposes.
As the price of rice husks increased considerably in the last
years (currently EUR30,000 per year), rice husks were partially
replaced by using natural gas. A total replacement would
lead to huge investment costs carried by the company alone.
The alternative was the usage of a gasification site granted
by a Japanese NGO with the additional incentive to produce
electricity covering the entire energy demand. In this case the
company’s investment covers the cost of implementation of the
tubes for the heat distribution and the extension of the storage
capacity. In the case of the gasification the demand for the
required biomass was doubled to 2.5 tonnes rice husks per
year to provide the necessary heat and to run a 180kW gas fuel
engine to produce electrical energy.
Opportunities for renewables:
The implementation of gasification of the rice husks site provides
two benefits:
• The heat production is carried out without the heavy ash and
dust pollution.
• In addition electricity is generated which is used for internal
electrical power needs in the production process. Any surplus
electricity is provided to the national grid.
Renewable solution:
This example provided valuable insights how to structure projects
aimed at resource efficiency for the “bottom of the pyramid”. Apart
from the grant funding for the gasification site, all other investment
was carried out by the company itself, as well as maintenance
training for staff. The motivation of the company is clearly the
significant cost reduction from the combined production of heat
Information Paper
and electricity using local biomass resources. Furthermore this
provides independence from rising electricity costs and rising fossil
fuel prices.
Within six months the replacement of the old combustion
technology was carried out. Only a few old ovens are still used for
back-up purposes.
Project financing and costs:
Gasification site incl. engine: roughly EUR180,000 provided as a
grant by a Japanese NGO.
All other items (tubes, capacity expenditure): Not disclosed
Economic viability: Pay off not disclosed, investment mainly driven
by cost reduction in the production of the main cost drivers (heat
and electricity).
Feed in tariff for surplus electricity.
Project outcome:
The cost reduction and the additional income improved the
earning profile of the company substantially, facilitating growth
and additional employment.
One important insight is the acceptance of the gasification
technology: Despite challenges in the implementation phase due
to the complexity of the process, the technology change was
successful in the end. The main reasons for that is the affinity of the
company with the basics of this technology, such as how to handle
heat production and running fuel engines.
Currently there is still untapped potential in using the full capacity
of the 180kW fuel gas engine to produce electricity. By extending
the chicharon production capacity stepwise a full usage can be
expected within the next three years.
Contact
Prof. Dr. Elmar Steurer
Vice President - Research and sustainability
University of Applied Sciences
E-Mail: [email protected]
Local contact in the Philippines:
Gerard Torres
Jenny’s Pork Chicharon
70 Bagbaguin, Sta. Maria, Province Bulacan, Philippines
E-Mail: [email protected]
RELEVANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION POSSIBILITIES
FOR BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION MARKETS
14
PANGEA
Alliance for Rural Electrification
Dairy Power Box: Anaerobic Bioenergy from Dairy Waste
Just outside Gaborone, BOTSWANA
Plant operator training - Source: Selectra
Inside the Power Box AD Container - Source: Selectra
SELECTRA
Company description
Project financing and costs:
The challenge
Project outcome:
Selectra, established in 1987, is one of the pioneers of the biogas
industry in Southern Africa. Using the expertise of experienced
biologists and engineers, they design, develop and implement
sustainable solutions in the waste, energy and water sectors for
clients in agriculture, industry, mining and infrastructure across
Africa.
On average the daily waste of one dairy cow equals that of
20-40 people. In Southern Africa, around 2,500 dairy farms
produce almost 3 million metric tonnes of milk annually, adding
up to a lot of waste.16 While large quantities of nutrients in
animal waste negatively impacting the local land, dairy farms
use a lot of costly grid electricity to run chillers, vacuum pumps,
and to heat water to clean the milking equipment, resulting in
smaller dairies struggling to compete with larger operations.
The objective of this Botswana-based project was to install a
CHP unit to take the plant off-grid. One challenge the project
faced was inconsistency of feedstock availability, which was
solved by educating plant personnel.
Opportunities for renewables:
Selectra focuses upon energy recovery using anaerobic
digestion, nutrient recovery and water reuse, which reduces
operating costs and facilitates cleaner, greener agriculture.
Most farm-generated organic wastes can be managed
through their H2E AD system, which not only solves waste
disposal issues, but also generates the energy to power the
farm operations; reducing costs, damage to the environment,
and the need for grid electricity.
Project investment was ZAR 2,500,000 (EUR 180,000) financed
by The Energy and Environment Partnership (EEP) scheme.17
Purchases of the system rely fully on private market mechanisms,
with the Dairy Power Box system providing reliable off-grid power
at a reasonable cost, and an expected payback of between 3-5
years depending on site-specific criteria.
The project benefits have been job creation, increased job security
at the dairy (due to increased financial competitiveness), and
free energy for the staff to cook meals. Many H2E systems have
already been installed throughout the world, with Selectra serving
all of Sub-Saharan Africa. Replacing grid electricity makes the Dairy
Power Box attractive for African countries, most of which lack
access to electricity. Given the right political and financial support,
this technology can be replicated across Africa.
Contact
Rob Cloete
Technical Director
Telephone: +27 86 124 6427
Email [email protected]
www.selectra.co.za
The Renewable Solution
The Selectra-developed Dairy Power Box is a containerised Wasteto-Power Solution specifically for dairies. It provides off-grid power
through anaerobic digestion of the waste and wastewater from
the dairy to produce biogas. A biogas-fuelled co-generation of
heat and power (CHP) generator displaces up to 100kW of grid
electricity. The system is housed in ISO shipping containers, with
a plug & play design; enabling easy installation and minimum
disruption to farming operations. The system requires minimal
maintenance and training is provided at installation. The indicative
process yield is 1kW of electrical power and 2kW of thermal energy
per 36 cows.
16
http://www.milksa.co.za/sites/default/files/BIPSSM255%20September%202014.pdf
17
http://eepafrica.org/
Information Paper
RELEVANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION POSSIBILITIES
FOR BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION MARKETS
15
PANGEA
Alliance for Rural Electrification
VII. REFERENCES
Amigun, B. and et al., (2014). Anaerobic Biogas Generation for Rural Area Energy Provision in Africa. In: D. Sunil Kumar, ed., Biogas, 1st ed. InTech.
Aramburu, J. (2012). Step by Step Guide to Making Biochar Briquettes. [Blog] Re:char. Available at: http://www.re-char.
com/2012/07/03/step-by-step-guide-to-making-biochar-briquettes/ [Accessed 18 Dec. 2014]. Borras , S. and Franco, J. (2010a). Towards a broader view of the politics of global land grab: rethinking land issues, reframing resistance Working Paper Series No. 001. Initiatives in Critical Agrarian Studies (ICAS). The Hague: International Institute of Social Studies (ISS)
Caspeta, L. and Nielsen, J. (2013). Economic and environmental impacts of microbial biodiesel. Nat Biotechnol, 31(9), pp.789-793.
Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and Barriers. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3),
pp.354-363.
Cushion, E. and et al., (2010). Bioenergy Development. Issues and Impacts for Poverty and Natural Resource Management. Washington DC: World Bank.
Deenanath, E., Iyuke, S. and Rumbold, K. (2012). The Bioethanol Industry in Sub-Saharan Africa: History, Challenges, and Prospects. Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, 2012, pp.1-11.
Dragone, G. and et al., (2014). Third generation biofuels from microalgae. MICROBIOLOGY BOOK SERIES, [online] 2(2), pp.1355-1366. Available at: http://www.formatex.info/microbiology2/1355-1366.pdf [Accessed 23 Nov. 2014].
EC Joint Research Centre (2011). Critical issues in estimating ILUC emisssion - Outcomes of an expert consultation 9-10 November 2010, Ispra (Italy); Marelli L, Mulligan D, Edwards R; Ispra http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/
files/EU_report_24816.pdf
Ernst & Young (2011). Biofuels and indirect land use change: The case for mitigation; London http://pangealink.org/
wp-content/uploads/2011/06/EY-biofuels-and-ILUC-the-case-of-mitigation.pdf
Fritsche U, Wiegmann K (2011). Indirect Land Use Change and Biofuels; prepared for the EP Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety; IP/A/ENVI/ST/2010-15; Brussels http://www.europarl.
europa.eu/activities/committees/studies/download.do?language=en&file=35128
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016:0062:EN:PDF
Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, (2014). Clean Cookstoves Can Save Lives & Empower Women. [online] Available at: http://www.cleancookstoves.org/resources/fact-sheets/cookstoves-and-women-1.pdf [Accessed 3 Dec. 2014].
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), (2008). Biofuel Production, Trade and Sustainable Development. Policy Discussion Paper. Geneva, Switzerland.
International Energy Agency (IEA), (2008). From 1st to 2nd generation biofuel technologies. Paris: OECD/IEA.
International Energy Agency, “Africa Energy Outlook”, (2014), pp. 3, 13 and 122
International Food Policy Research Institute, EC Joint Research Centre - Institute for Energy and Transport (2014). Progress in estimates of ILUC with MIRAGE model; Laborde D, Padella M, Edwards R, Marelli L; Report EUR 26106 EN; Luxembourg http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/bf-ca/sites/bf-ca/files/documents/ifpri-jrc_report.pdf
Ki-moon, B. (2014). Sustainable Energy ‘Golden Thread’ Connecting Economic Growth, Increased Social Equity,
Secretary-General Tells Ministerial Meeting. Seoul http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sgsm15839.doc.htm
Information Paper
RELEVANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION POSSIBILITIES
FOR BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION MARKETS
16
PANGEA
Alliance for Rural Electrification
Köpffer, W. (1997). Life cycle assessment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 4(4), pp.223-228.
Laishley, R. (2009). Is Africa’s land up for grabs?: foreign acquisitions: some opportunities, but many see threats.
Africa Renewal; Vol. 23. No. 3; p. 4: New York
Ma, F. and Hanna, M. (1999). Biodiesel production: a review. Bioresource Technology, 70, pp.1-15.
Ndong, R., Montrejaud-Vignoles, M., Saint Girons, O., Gabrielle, B., Pirot, R., Domergue, M. And Sablayrolles, C. (2009). Life cycle assessment of biofuels from Jatropha curcas in West Africa: a field study. GCB Bioenergy, 1(3),
pp.197-210.
PANGEA (2012). Annual report 2012 http://www.pangealink.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Annual-report-2012-
web.pdf
RECP. Africa-EU Renewable Energy Cooperation Programme, (2014). Mini-grid Policy Toolkit. Policy and Business Frameworks for Successful Mini-grid Roll-outs. European Union Energy Initiative Partnership Dialogue Facility (EUEI PDF).
Sims, R., Mabee, W., Saddler, J. and Taylor, M. (2010). An overview of second generation biofuel technologies. Bioresource Technology, 101(6), pp.1570-1580.
Sun, Y. and Cheng, J. (2002). Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials for ethanol production: a review.
Bioresource Technology, 83(1), pp.1-11.
The International Council on Clean Transportation (2012): A model-based quantitative assessment of the carbon benefits of introducing iLUC factors in the European Renewable Energy Directive; Washington DC
http://static.euractiv.com/sites/all/euractiv/files/Biofuels%20iLUC%0ICCT%20study.pdf
Tripathi, A., Iyer, P., Kandpal, T. and Singh, K. (1998). Assessment of availability and costs of some agricultural residues used as feedstocks for biomass gasification and briquetting in India. Energy Conversion and Management, 39(15), pp.1611-1618.
Vine, E. (2005). An international survey of the energy service company (ESCO) industry. Energy Policy, 33(5), pp.691-704.
Zhang, Y. (2006). Urban-Rural Literacy Gaps in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Roles of Socioeconomic Status and School Quality. COMP EDUC REV, 50(4), pp.581-602.
Information Paper
RELEVANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION POSSIBILITIES
FOR BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION MARKETS
17
PANGEA
Alliance for Rural Electrification
Authors:
Alliance for Rural Electrification, Marcus Wiemann
PANGEA, Meghan Sapp
Contributors :
All Power Labs, Tom Price • Alliance for Rural Electrification (ARE), David Lecoque, Markus Sebastian Hole • Ankur
Scientific Energy Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vipin Surana • European Biogass Association, Susanna Pflüger • GERES,
Benjamin Pallière • Jenny’s Porc Chicaron, Prof. Dr. Elmar Steurer • Partners for Euro-African Green Energy
(PANGEA), Joan Isus • Selectra, Rob Cloete.
About ARE (www.ruralelec.org) :
ARE is an international business association representing the decentralised energy sector working towards the integration
of renewables into rural electrification markets in developing and emerging countries.
Photo credits :
Photo credits: Annkur
Photo credits: Jenny’s Porc Chicaron
Engineers Without Borders, All Power Labs, Ankur Scientific Energy Technologies, Porc Chicaron, Selectra.
Alliance for Rural Electrification
Rue d’Arlon 69-71
1040 Brussels
Belgium
Tel: +32 2 709 55 42
E-mail: [email protected]
Facebook: AllianceforRuralElectrification
Twitter: @RuralElec
Linkedin: Alliance for Rural Electrification
www.ruralelec.org
Information Paper
No portion of this document may be
reproduced, scanned into an electronic
system, distributed, publicly displayed
or used as the basis of derivative works
without properly mentioning the Alliance
for Rural Electrification as the source. For
more information on the terms of use,
please contact
[email protected].
RELEVANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION POSSIBILITIES
FOR BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION MARKETS
18