Biogas technology, which converts biological waste into energy, is considered as an excellent tool to improve the lives, livelihoods, health, ecosystem and economy. In Ethiopia, biogas technology has been domesticated to improve the rural energy security and household’s income by reducing their dependence on traditional biomass energy and chemical fertilizers. The profitability of biogas installation is rendered doubtful despite its numerous benefits and domestication efforts. Hence, this study aimed at evaluating the cost-benefit analysis and Profitability of biogas technology at household level in West Hararghe zone, Eastern Ethiopia. By using multistage sampling technique, cross-sectional data were collected from 105 systematically selected adopter households. The costs incurred and the benefits gained were analyzed using paired t-test. Payback Period (PBP), benefit cost ratio (BCR) and Net Present Value (NPV) were analyzed using different economic formula. The results indicated the most commonly domesticated plant is fixed dome biogas with volumes of 6 m3 and 8 m3. Investing 6 m3 biogas plant with subsidy (0.73 year) had short PBP than the 8 m3 plant (0.97 year). This implies, subsidy has been attracting households into biogas adoption. The BCR under assumption with subsidy was found to be 1.34 and 1.10 at 10% discount rate for 6 m3 and 8 m3 plants, respectively. Under both assumptions with and without subsidy, the NPV results for 6 m3 and 8 m3 biogas plant sizes turn out positive. In general, the results of PBP, BCR and NPV shown that the biogas investment is preferable and profitable for continuing the investment for the future.
| Published in | International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy (Volume 9, Issue 2) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijrse.20200902.14 |
| Page(s) | 45-52 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Biogas Energy, Biogas Plant Size, Profitability, Ethiopia
| [1] | Abbas, Q., & Awan, S. H. (2017). Impact of organizational politics on employee performance in public sector organizations. Pakistan Administrative Review, 1 (1), 19-31. |
| [2] | Alemneh, Z. (2011). The contribution of biogas production from cattle manure at household level for forest conservation and soil fertility improvement. Unpublished MSc Thesis, Science Faculty, Addis Ababa University. |
| [3] | Amare, Z. Y. (2014). The role of Biogas Energy Production and Use in Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction; the case of Amhara National Regional State, Fogera District, Ethiopia. benefits 1 (5). |
| [4] | Amigun, B., Sigamoney, R. & von Blottnitz, H. (2008). Commercialisation of biofuel industry in Africa: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 12 (3): 690-711. |
| [5] | Ansari, M. S. Khan, M. S. Haider, A. Ahmad, M. A. Ahmed, (2011) A study on economic feasibility of biogas plant for a small town, Sci. Int. 23, 325e326. |
| [6] | Bala, B. & Hossain, M. (1992). Economics of biogas digesters in Bangladesh. Energy 17 (10): 939-944. |
| [7] | Biswas, W. K. & Lucas, N. (1997). Economic viability of biogas technology in a Bangladesh village. Energy 22 (8): 763-770. |
| [8] | Chakrabarty, S., Boksh, F. M. & Chakraborty, A. (2013). Economic viability of biogas and green self-employment opportunities. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 28: 757-766. |
| [9] | Claudia, B. & Addis, Y. (2011). Survey of biogas plants in four regional states of Ethiopia. SNV Ethiopia. |
| [10] | CSA (2013). Population Projection of Ethiopia for all regions at district level (2014-2017). Central Statistics Agency (CSA), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. |
| [11] | Eshete, G., Sonder, K. & ter Heegde, F. (2006). Report on the feasibility study of a national programme for domestic biogas in Ethiopia. SNV Netherlands Development Organization: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. |
| [12] | Gabisa, E. W. & Gheewala, S. H. (2019). Potential, environmental, and socio-economic assessment of biogas production in Ethiopia: The case of Amhara regional state. Biomass and Bioenergy 122: 446-456. |
| [13] | Garfí, M., Ferrer-Martí, L., Velo, E. & Ferrer, I. (2012). Evaluating benefits of low-cost household digesters for rural Andean communities. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (1): 575-581. |
| [14] | Gwavuya, S., Abele, S., Barfuss, I., Zeller, M. & Müller, J. (2012). Household energy economics in rural Ethiopia: A cost-benefit analysis of biogas energy. Renewable Energy 48: 202-209. |
| [15] | IEA (2011). “World Energy Model — Methodology And Assumptions”, International Energy Agency, Paris Cedex, France. |
| [16] | Islam A. K. M. S., 2005. Status of Renewable Energy Technologies in Bangladesh, ASESCO Science and Technology Vision, 1 Pp. 51 |
| [17] | Kabir, H., Palash, M. & Bauer, S. (2012). Appraisal of domestic biogas plants in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Economics 35 (454-2016-36351): 71. |
| [18] | Kamp, L. M. & Forn, E. B. (2016). Ethiopia׳ s emerging domestic biogas sector: Current status, bottlenecks and drivers. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60: 475-488. |
| [19] | Karekezi, S. (2002). Renewables in Africa—meeting the energy needs of the poor. Energy Policy 30 (11-12): 1059-1069. |
| [20] | Kelebe, H. E., Ayimut, K. M., Berhe, G. H. & Hintsa, K. (2017). Determinants for adoption decision of small scale biogas technology by rural households in Tigray, Ethiopia. Energy Economics 66: 272-278. |
| [21] | Legros, G., Havet, I., Bruce, N., Bonjour, S., Rijal, K. & Takada, M. (2009). The energy access situation in developing countries: a review focusing on the least developed countries and Sub-Saharan Africa. World Health Organization and UNDP. |
| [22] | Lutz, D. A. & Howarth, R. B. (2015). The price of snow: albedo valuation and a case study for forest management. Environmental Research Letters 10 (6): 064013. |
| [23] | Mengistu, M. G., Simane, B., Eshete, G. & Workneh, T. S. (2016a). The environmental benefits of domestic biogas technology in rural Ethiopia. Biomass and Bioenergy 90: 131-138. |
| [24] | Mengistu, M. G., Simane, B., Eshete, G. & Workneh, T. S. (2016b). Factors affecting households' decisions in biogas technology adoption, the case of Ofla and Mecha Districts, northern Ethiopia. Renewable Energy 93: 215-227. |
| [25] | Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. 2016. Growth and Transformation Plan Annual Progress Report for F. Y. 2014/15 |
| [26] | Mmopelwa, G. (2006). Economic and financial analysis of harvesting and utilization of river reed in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of environmental management 79 (4): 329-335. |
| [27] | Rao, P. S. C., Miller, J. B., Wang, Y. D. & Byrne, J. B. (2009). Energy-microfinance intervention for below poverty line households in India. Energy Policy 37 (5): 1694-1712. |
| [28] | Sahir, A. H. Qureshi, (2007) Specific concerns of Pakistan in the context of energy security issues and geopolitics of the region, Energy Policy 35, 2031e2037. |
| [29] | Tucho, G. & Nonhebel, S. (2015). Bio-wastes as an alternative household cooking energy source in Ethiopia. Energies 8 (9): 9565-9583. |
| [30] | Walekhwaa, D. Larsb, J. Mugishaa, (2014). Economic Viability of Biogas Energy Production from Family-sized Digesters in Uganda. |
| [31] | WHO (2006). UNAIDS: Air quality guidelines: global update 2005. World Health Organization. |
APA Style
Tale Gedefa, Emebet Abera. (2020). Profitability Analysis of Family-size Biogas Plant Installation in West Hararghe Zone, Oromia National Regional State, Ethiopia. International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy, 9(2), 45-52. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijrse.20200902.14
ACS Style
Tale Gedefa; Emebet Abera. Profitability Analysis of Family-size Biogas Plant Installation in West Hararghe Zone, Oromia National Regional State, Ethiopia. Int. J. Sustain. Green Energy 2020, 9(2), 45-52. doi: 10.11648/j.ijrse.20200902.14
AMA Style
Tale Gedefa, Emebet Abera. Profitability Analysis of Family-size Biogas Plant Installation in West Hararghe Zone, Oromia National Regional State, Ethiopia. Int J Sustain Green Energy. 2020;9(2):45-52. doi: 10.11648/j.ijrse.20200902.14
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijrse.20200902.14,
author = {Tale Gedefa and Emebet Abera},
title = {Profitability Analysis of Family-size Biogas Plant Installation in West Hararghe Zone, Oromia National Regional State, Ethiopia},
journal = {International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy},
volume = {9},
number = {2},
pages = {45-52},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijrse.20200902.14},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijrse.20200902.14},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijrse.20200902.14},
abstract = {Biogas technology, which converts biological waste into energy, is considered as an excellent tool to improve the lives, livelihoods, health, ecosystem and economy. In Ethiopia, biogas technology has been domesticated to improve the rural energy security and household’s income by reducing their dependence on traditional biomass energy and chemical fertilizers. The profitability of biogas installation is rendered doubtful despite its numerous benefits and domestication efforts. Hence, this study aimed at evaluating the cost-benefit analysis and Profitability of biogas technology at household level in West Hararghe zone, Eastern Ethiopia. By using multistage sampling technique, cross-sectional data were collected from 105 systematically selected adopter households. The costs incurred and the benefits gained were analyzed using paired t-test. Payback Period (PBP), benefit cost ratio (BCR) and Net Present Value (NPV) were analyzed using different economic formula. The results indicated the most commonly domesticated plant is fixed dome biogas with volumes of 6 m3 and 8 m3. Investing 6 m3 biogas plant with subsidy (0.73 year) had short PBP than the 8 m3 plant (0.97 year). This implies, subsidy has been attracting households into biogas adoption. The BCR under assumption with subsidy was found to be 1.34 and 1.10 at 10% discount rate for 6 m3 and 8 m3 plants, respectively. Under both assumptions with and without subsidy, the NPV results for 6 m3 and 8 m3 biogas plant sizes turn out positive. In general, the results of PBP, BCR and NPV shown that the biogas investment is preferable and profitable for continuing the investment for the future.},
year = {2020}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Profitability Analysis of Family-size Biogas Plant Installation in West Hararghe Zone, Oromia National Regional State, Ethiopia AU - Tale Gedefa AU - Emebet Abera Y1 - 2020/06/03 PY - 2020 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijrse.20200902.14 DO - 10.11648/j.ijrse.20200902.14 T2 - International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy JF - International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy JO - International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy SP - 45 EP - 52 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2575-1549 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijrse.20200902.14 AB - Biogas technology, which converts biological waste into energy, is considered as an excellent tool to improve the lives, livelihoods, health, ecosystem and economy. In Ethiopia, biogas technology has been domesticated to improve the rural energy security and household’s income by reducing their dependence on traditional biomass energy and chemical fertilizers. The profitability of biogas installation is rendered doubtful despite its numerous benefits and domestication efforts. Hence, this study aimed at evaluating the cost-benefit analysis and Profitability of biogas technology at household level in West Hararghe zone, Eastern Ethiopia. By using multistage sampling technique, cross-sectional data were collected from 105 systematically selected adopter households. The costs incurred and the benefits gained were analyzed using paired t-test. Payback Period (PBP), benefit cost ratio (BCR) and Net Present Value (NPV) were analyzed using different economic formula. The results indicated the most commonly domesticated plant is fixed dome biogas with volumes of 6 m3 and 8 m3. Investing 6 m3 biogas plant with subsidy (0.73 year) had short PBP than the 8 m3 plant (0.97 year). This implies, subsidy has been attracting households into biogas adoption. The BCR under assumption with subsidy was found to be 1.34 and 1.10 at 10% discount rate for 6 m3 and 8 m3 plants, respectively. Under both assumptions with and without subsidy, the NPV results for 6 m3 and 8 m3 biogas plant sizes turn out positive. In general, the results of PBP, BCR and NPV shown that the biogas investment is preferable and profitable for continuing the investment for the future. VL - 9 IS - 2 ER -
Email: