Life Cycle Approach Applied To Biogas Projects In Uganda
Life Cycle Thinking Assessment Applied to Three BiogasProjects in Central UgandaBySarah M OcwiejaA REPORTSubmitted in partial fulfillment of the requirementsFor the degree ofMASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERINGMICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY2010Copyright Sarah M. Ocwieja 2010
This report “Life Cycle Thinking Assessment Applied to Three Biogas Projects inCentral Uganda” is hereby approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for theDegree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING.Civil and Environmental EngineeringMaster’s International ProgramSignatures:Report AdvisorJames R. MihelcicDepartment ChairWilliam BulleitDateii
PrefaceThis research was completed during my time in Uganda serving as a Peace CorpsVolunteer from August 2007 to October 2009. I was a general health (water andsanitation) volunteer placed in the central region of Uganda with a local CommunityBased Organization (CBO), Kyetume Community Based Health Care Program. I workedon a variety of projects including; health clubs at secondary schools, water and sanitationeducation at primary schools, fuel efficient stoves, income generating activities for awomen’s group, keyhole gardens for food security, and a water system supplying waterto the resource center and health center of the community and protected springs.This report is submitted to complete the requirements for my master’s degree inEnvironmental Engineering from the Master’s International Program in Civil andEnvironmental Engineering from Michigan Technological University (MTU). This paperapplies the Life Cycle Matrix Methodology developed by Jennifer McConville for hermaster’s degree in Environmental Engineering from MTU. The three case studies usedfor this report are not a part of my general work mentioned above but, came to myattention through other Peace Corps volunteers and Ugandan friends I had met.iii
Table of ContentsPreface. iiiTable of Contents . ivList of Figures . vList of Tables . vAcknowledgements . viAbstract . vii1.0 Introduction and Objective . 21.1 Introduction to Biogas Projects in Africa . 31.2 Objectives . 61.3 Energy in Uganda . 71.4 Biogas Projects in Uganda . 72.0 Biogas Systems . 102.1 Anaerobic Process . 102.2 Fixed Dome Design . 132.3 Floating Drum Design. 142.4 Tubular Design. 153.0 Methods. 163.1 Introduction of Life Cycle Matrix Methodology . 163.2 Application of Life Cycle Matrix . 204.0 Case Studies used for this Research. 224.1 Case Study 1: Jim’s Education Center . 244.1.1 Assessment . 304.1.2 Conclusion . 324.2 Case Study 2: Katosi . 324.2.1 Assessment . 374.2.2 Conclusion . 384.3 Case Study 3: James Mugerwa . 394.3.1 Assessment . 414.3.2 Conclusion . 425.0 Comparing Case Studies . 435.1 Life Stage Comparison . 435.2 Sustainability Comparison . 456.0 Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Projects . 476.1 Conclusions . 476.2 Recommendations to Improve the Assessment Tool . 486.3 Recommendations for Future Biogas Projects . 487.0 References . 518.0 Appendix . 548.1 Scoring for Element 1,1 . 548.2 Prices for construction of Biogas Projects by NARO . 63iv
List of FiguresFigure 1: Map of Uganda . 6Figure 2: Uganda's energy consumption in 2000. 7Figure 3: Fixed dome biogas plant (Nicarao design) . 14Figure 4: Floating drum biogas system with a water-jacket and external guide frame . 15Figure 5: Diagram of tubular system . 15Figure 6: Flow chart of the five life cycle stages of water and sanitation developmentprojects located in the developing world. . 19Figure 7: Location of three case studies assessed in this research . 23Figure 8: Latrine house at Jim’s Education Center . 26Figure 9: Opening for expansion chamber at Jim’s Education Center . 26Figure 10: Detailed diagram for built system at Jim’s Education Center . 27Figure 11: Kitchen at Jim’s Education Center . 28Figure 12: Manhole Cover with Gas Outlet . 29Figure 13: Inside View of Digester . 29Figure 14: Latrine house at Katosi . 33Figure 15: View of expansion chamber, top of digester and latrine house at Katosi . 33Figure 16: Diagram of biogas latrine at Katosi . 35Figure 17: Trench for tubular system for James Mugerwa . 39Figure 18: Gas storage for tubular system for James Mugerwa . 39Figure 19: James near the manhole of the digester . 41Figure 20: Expansion chamber with jerry cans to transport slurry to field . 41Figure 21 Life Stage comparison for the three case studies . 44Figure 22: Sustainability comparison for the three case studies . 46List of TablesTable 1: Countries with biogas producing plants in Africa as of 1993 . 5Table 2: Issues arising for the three different biogas systems . 12Table 3: Five factors identified in the study of sustainable development of water andsanitation projects . 18Table 4: Sustainability assessment matrix . 20Table 5: Brief comparison of case studies . 23Table 6: Assessment of Jim's Education Center latrine (Case Study 1) . 31Table 7: Assessment of Katosi biogas latrine (Case Study 2) . 38Table 8: Assessment of James Mugerwa biogas plant (Case Study 3) . 42v
AcknowledgementsI would like to take this opportunity to first thank my family and friends, who have donea wonderful job supporting me during these past two years. Through their emails andcalls they have helped me adjust and gave me the opportunity to completely enjoy mytime in Uganda.James Mihelcic’s excitement for this research gave me the confidence that I would beable to compile enough information for this report and that it would be information worthsharing. The help from him and the rest my committee, Blair Orr and Kurt Patterson, hasbeen amazing as I finished the report. All this while I was adjusting back to life inAmerica.The community of Kyetume and the Kyetume Community Based Health CareProgramme welcomed me with open hearts and arms. Without their support andfriendship this report and my Peace Corps service would not have been possible. Theyenabled me to work within the community for my Peace Corps service but also supportedme while I did my additional research for this report.Mwebale obuyambi bwe mwampa. Njakubajukiranga emirembe nemirembe.vi
AbstractThis report applies the life cycle thinking assessment to three biogas projects in centralUganda. Previously the life cycle thinking assessment has been applied only to arainwater harvesting project and a small drip irrigation project by evaluation after thecompletion of the projects. For these case studies the assessment was done aftercompletion of the project but the case studies are compared using the life cycle thinkingassessment to help determine best practice methods for future biogas projects in Uganda.The three biogas projects are Jim’s Education Center (case study 1), Katosi (case study2), and James Mugerwa (case study 3). The case studies are of the same fixed domedesign but vary in the community set up as well as the source of the material to be used inthe digester. Only one of the three case studies is currently in operation. The overallscores for Jim’s Education Center, Katosi and James Mugerwa biogas projects are61/100, 20/100 and 67/100 respectively. These scores indicate how well a project did inthe different sustainability factors as well as the five different life stages.Conclusions include recommendations for future biogas projects such as; making sure thecommunity has a manual to provide a guide as how to operate and maintain the system.It was also observed that the life cycle assessment tool can also be made morespecialized, having a different matrix for water projects and sanitation projects.vii
1.0 Introduction and Objective2.4 billion people have no access to any form of improved sanitation (United Nations,2005). Funding and projects keep on increasing to meet this demand, but not everyproject succeeds. There are many factors that can cause a sanitation project to fail andcurrently it is estimated that about 50% of water and sanitation projects assessed by theWorld Bank in the developing world are not sustainable (World Bank, 2003).By looking at all the life stages of a project a development worker is able to identifyproblem areas before the project is complete. For example, in many communities asanitation system is never cleaned, opened or repaired. Many issues cause theseproblems; for example, no sense of ownership of the project by the community, lack ofknowledge by the community, lack of funds, and no plan for operation.To determine best practice methods in the developed world an existing assessment toolthat uses a life cycle thinking approach is the Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).It provides users the ability to measure the environmental impact a product or service hasduring each stage of its life. The assessment tool allows the individual to compile theenvironmental impact associated with raw material acquisition, the manufacturingprocess, transportation and packaging, the use phase, and end of life disposal of a productor service. For example, the environmental stressors to collect and process raw materialsare taken into consideration based on the percentage of the raw material that shows up inthe final product. This concept could not be directly applied to development projectsbecause the required detailed information on how products and materials are produced indeveloping countries has not been collected. Also, development projects have somedifferent factors such as community participation and appropriate technology that are notconsidered for industrial processes in the developed world.To adopt the LCA to conditions in developing countries, a life cycle assessment tool thatis similar in principle to a Streamlined LCA was developed by Jennifer McConville(McConville, 2006) from her experience as a Peace Corps Volunteer. This matrix takes2
into account five sustainability factors: (1) socio cultural respect, (2) communityparticipation, (3) political cohesion, (4) economic sustainability and (5) environmentalsustainability. These sustainability factors are considered in each life stage of the project.The five life stages of a development project are: (1) needs assessment, (2) conceptualdesigns and feasibility, (3) design and action planning, (4) implementation and (5)operation and maintenance. The life cycle matrix provides a tool for developmentworkers to approach a project in a different way, looking at the sustainability of each lifestage.This report applies this method to three different biogas projects located in the centralregion of Uganda. Each case study was scored based on interviews and informationgathered during site visits. By applying this method to a group of similar projects, in thiscase three biogas case studies, similarities about biogas projects can been seen, as well aslessons learned for future biogas projects in Uganda. Preliminary results have beenpublished in Ocwieja, S.M. & J.R. Mihelcic, (2009). Life Cycle Approach for EvaluatingSanitation Projects- Case Study: Biogas Latrine. Proceedings of 34th WEDC InternationalConference, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: Sustainable Development and MultisectoralApproaches, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, May 18-22.1.1 Introduction to Biogas Projects in AfricaBiogas projects are on the rise through out the world. They provide a method to producemethane used for cooking and lighting from the waste of animals and humans. Incountries such as Nepal there is a large push to increase the number of biogas plants inthe country. These projects usually use cow manure to produce the gas, but by making asmall adjustment, a household latrine can be connected to a digester increasing gasproduction and providing an easy way to manage the human waste.In 2002, there were 2.6 billion people in the world without access to basic sanitationfacilities. In Sub-Saharan Africa only 36% of the population is served with improvedsanitation facilities, and only 58% are served with a safe and clean water supply3
(WHO/UNICEF, 2005). Biogas projects can help meet the sanitation needs of many ofthe world’s poor. They can also help meet many of the United Nation’s MillenniumGoals (MDGs). The first goal of the MDGs is to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.By using the slurry (the digested waste) that is produced from the biogas systems acommunity can fertilize its crops and also improve the composition of its soil. Goal Threeof the MDGs is to promote gender equality and empower women. Most families count onfirewood to cook their meals; it is the women and the girl child that assume the burden ofcooking and gathering firewood. By using biogas women and the girl child would havemore time for other activities such as attending school (related to Goal Two: Achieveuniversal primary education), income generating activities and more social time. Also,the exposure to smoke produced from the cooking fire would be reduced, improving thehealth of women and children (related to Goal Four: Reduce child mortality). In addition,Goal Seven of the MDGs, ensuring environmental sustainability is assisted by biogastechnology by providing sanitation for both urban and rural communities, reducingdeforestation, and reducing the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere (UnitedNations, 2005).Table 1 shows that as of 1993 the number of biogas plants in Africa was small with onlya few countries making an effort to increase access to biogas technology. There is a newAfrican initiative to increase the number of biogas plants that was launched in 2007. Thegoal of this initiative is to provide 2 million households by 2020 with biogas digesters(Ukpabi, 2008). However, the number of biogas plants currently in Africa is unknownwith most units installed in Tanzania (around 4,000).It has also been estimated that only 60% of these plants have remained in operation (vanNes, & Nhete, 2007). The reasons for failure or unsatisfactory performance of thesebiogas systems can often be found in the mistakes made during the planning stages (GTZ,2009). Other reasons for failures include lack of interest and understanding by thecommunity, construction faults, insufficient maintenance on the system, misconception ofbenefits of the system, lack of training new owners on the system, and budgeting errors.4
Table 1: Countries with biogas producing plants in Africa as of 1993Source: (Akinbami et al, 2001)A biogas plant or latrine when successful is an appropriate and sustainable method to dealwith human or animal waste. This system produces two extremely useful products fromthe waste: biogas and slurry. Using biogas for cooking and lighting reduces the strain onthe environment by decreasing the use of biomass and the production of green housegases (as methane that is produced normally from manure is now captured and used).The biogas syst
1.1 Introduction to Biogas Projects in Africa . Biogas projects are on the rise through out the world. They provide a method to produce methane used for cooking and lighting from the waste of animals and humans. In countries such as Nepal there is a large push to increase the number of biogas plants in the country.
2.1 Life cycle techniques in life cycle sustainability assessment 5 2.2 (Environmental) life cycle assessment 6 2.3 Life cycle costing 14 2.4 Social life cycle assessment 22 3 Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment in Practice 34 3.1 Conducting a step-by-step life cycle sustainability assessment 34 3.2 Additional LCSA issues 41 4 A Way Forward 46
life cycles. Table of Contents Apple Chain Apple Story Chicken Life Cycle Cotton Life Cycle Life Cycle of a Pea Pumpkin Life Cycle Tomato Life Cycle Totally Tomatoes Watermelon Life Cycle . The Apple Chain . Standards of Learning . Science: K.7, K.9, 2.4, 3.4, 3.8, 4.4 .
Insect Life Cycle Level L 5 6 These animals have a different kind of life cycle. A life cycle is the series of changes an animal goes through during its life. Insects have fascinating life cycles. Some insects have a four-stage life cycle. The insect lives as an egg, larva (LAR-vuh), pupa (PYOO-puh), and an adult. Others have a three-stage life
Life Cycle Impact Assessment—phase of life cycle assessment aimed at understanding and evaluating the magnitude and significance of the potential environmental impacts for a product system throughout the life cycle of the product. Life Cycle Interpretation—phase of life cycle assessment in which the findings of either the
4.UNEP/SETAC (2011). Global Guidance Principles for Life Cycle Assessment Databases. UNEP/SETAC Life-Cycle Initiative. ISBN: 978-92-807-3021-. 5.UNEP (2003). Evaluation of environmental impacts in Life Cycle Assessment, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (DTIE), Production and Consumption Unit, Paris. 6.ISO 14040 (2006).
3.1 life cycle 3.2 life cycle assessment 3.3 life cycle inventory analysis 3.4 life cycle impact assessment 3.5 life cycle interpretation 3.6 comparative assertion 3.7 transparency 3.8 environmental aspect 3.9 product 3.10 co-product 3.11 process 3.12 elementary flow 3.13 energy flow 3.14 feedstock energy 3.15 raw material LCA MODULE A1 18
Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) "Phase of life cycle assessment aimed at understanding and evaluating the magnitude and significance of the potential environmental impacts for a product system throughout the life cycle of the product" (ISO 14040:2006, section 3.4) Life Cycle Interpretation "Phase of life cycle assessment in which the .
2.0 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) 5 2.1 Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) 7 2.2 Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) 11 2.3 Framework 13 2.4 System Boundaries 16 2.5 Limitation and Problems 19 3.0 Life Cycle Cost Assessment (LCCA) 20 3.1 Life Cycle Cost (LCC) 20 3.2 Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) 22 3.3 Financial Supplementary Measures 23
