Integrated Renewable Energy Potential Assessment

- IREPA -

Biomass for bioenergy potential assessment

by a holistic and participatory approach

BIOM-LAND Travelling Conference

February 2016

M.Sc. Bastian Winkler

University of Hohenheim

• Highest REP in rural areas of Africa, Latin America and Asia 1

Smallholder farmers manage 80% of natural resources 2

• Implementation challenging - e.g. project failure in SSA: 64 % 3, in Thailand: 60% 4

Top-down approach with focus on techno-economic aspects

• Complex interaction: Technology | Society 5, 6

Why IREPA ?

1. De Vries et al. 2007 4. Green 2004 2. IASSTD 2009 5. Garcia and Bartolome 2010 3. Barry et al. 2011 6. Stirling 2014

“Since I am poor, and that will not change

even if many projects are launched,

I want to be at least a rested poor” 5

“Technology works. Users are the problem” 5

“De-installed” Biodigester

Sicambeni, South Africa (own photo)

Potential assessment and implementation

requires holistic and participatory approach

1

Methodology of the Integrated Renewable Energy Potential Assessment (IREPA)

2

Integrated Renewable Energy Potential Assessment (IREPA)

Brief overview of determining factors for the assessment of biomass potentials

Based on: Amigun et al. 2011; Brohmann et al. 2006; De Vries et al. 2007; Dornburg et al. 2008; Gross et al. 2003; Hoogwijk 2004;

IRENA-DBFZ 2013; Moriarty and Honnery 2012; Resch et al. 2008; Smeets et al. 2007; Thrän et al. 2010

3

Definition Determining factors Description of factors

Theoretical Bio-physical barriers bio-physical Climatic, geographical and geological conditions

bio-physical Incompatible land cover

technical, bio-physical Accessability

technical Infrastructure

socio-economic , environmental Competition: land, resources and biomass uses

institutional Policy support

social Social acceptance

Conversion efficiency technical Type / characteristics of conversion technology

Investment costs economic Public and private investments/procurement

Energy production costs institutional Policy support

Potential category

Geographical Suitable areas

Implementation

/ Realizable

Complex interaction of social, institutional,

environmental, technical, economic factorsAssessment on local to regional level

Technical

Availability of

suitable areas

Economical

Biomass Potential Assessment

• Bottom-up exploration of locally important factors for appropriate RET selection

Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) Research 7, 8

o Open-ended, semi-structured HH interviews

o Key-informant interviews

o Visits of adjacent rural development projects

o Transect walks

o Participant observation (“do it yourself”)

o Focus-group and workshop

o Review of secondary sources

• Impact assessment and participatory decision making

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Methods 9

o Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) 10

o Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (SMART) 11

7. Hart 2008 10. Saaty 1990

8. Chambers 1994 11. Chen 2010

9. Velasquez and Hester 2013

Household and community assessment

4

Household Interview (own photo)

RE-workshop (own photo)

Mgwenyana

• Eastern Cape Province

• Small-scale, subsistence farming

• Main crops: Maize, few fruits and

vegetables with very low yield level

5

Case study research in South Africa and India

Ghoragachha and Baikunthapur

• State of West Bengal

• Small-scale, subsistence and

market-oriented farming

• Main crops: Rice, vegetables, fruits and

flowers with very high yield level

Mgwenyana (own photo) Baikunthapur (own photo)

6

Case study: Renewable Resource Availability

Power densities of renewable resources at Mgwenyana and Ghoragachha / Baikunthapur

Solar Wind Hydro Geothermal Biomass

[W m-2

] [W m-2

] [MW] [W m-2

] [W m-2

a-1

]

ᴓ power density 186 14 17 0 1.1

Source Helio-Clim 3 WASA DWEABanks and Schäffler

2006NEO

[W m-2

] [W m-2

] [MW] [W m-2

] [W m-2

a-1

]

ᴓ power density 200 5 392 0.2 0.4

Source NASA SMSE NASA SMSE Parua 2010

Chandrasekharam &

Chandrasekhar

2015

NEO

Mgwenyana

Ghorgachha and Baikunthapur

m m X (X) X

7

Case study – Biomass Inventory Analysis

Biomass Mgwenyana Ghor. / Baiku.

Grass 0.31 n.a.

Organic wastes 0.0001 0.09

Animal manure 0.68 0.44

Human Excreta 0.09 0.13

Crop residues n.a.

- Rice straw n.a. 4.13

- Vegetable (Rabi) n.a. 2.53

- Vegetable (Zaid) n.a. 0.59

Energy content [kWh]: 6.8 49.4

[m³ d-1 farm-1]

Total Biogas Yield 1.1 7.9

Available biomass and biogas yields

Household biodigesters

in S.A. and India

(own photos) + organic fertilizer

Additional sources for biogas yield calculation: Callejón-Ferre et al. 2011;

CD4CDM 2009; FNR 2016; Gunaseelan 2004; Jölli and Giljum 2005; LfL 2007;

Moyo et al. 2010; Osuhor et al. 2002; Patil and Deshmukh 2015; Urmila et al. 2012;

Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (adapted from Scoones 1998)

Climate Change

Land availability

Input-prices increase

Access to clean water

Dependency on government and

private sector interests

Traditional hierarchies

Abundant natural resources

Education, skills and innovation proneness

Family networks, Agricult. Extension,

Self-sufficieny

Access to infrastructure and

resources High productivity

(in-)sufficient income Governm. support

Case study: Household and village assessment - India

8

9

Case study: RET selection factors

Overview of locally important technology selection factors

Mgwenyana Ghoragachha and Baikunthapur

Food and nutrition security

Access to clean water

Gender aspects

Social cohesion and stability

Social benefits and increased well-being Ease of daily activities

Education and development of new skills

Protection of soil, water, air and biodiversity Environmental Conservation

Investment costs Investment costs

Reduced expenditures on energy sources

Land requirements

Operation and maintenance

Creation of jobs, new products / markets

Energy security Energy security and realibility

Government support

(financial and O&M)

Techno-economic factors

Environmental factors

Institutional factors

Socio-cultural factors

10

Case study: Proposed RETs

Proposed renewable energy technologies

(ow

n p

ho

tos)

Solar-PV System

(www.kirtisolar.com)

Deenabandhu

biodigester

(http://agridr.in)

(ow

n p

ho

to)

(ow

n p

ho

to)

Mgwenyana Ghoragachha and Baikunthapur

Mini solar-PV light system Solar-PV system

(10 Wp) (500Wp - 1000Wp - 1500Wp)

Solar Geyser

Solar Water Heater

Household biodigster Household biodigster

Rocket-stove + forest management

Integrated Food and Energy System Integrated Food and Energy System

Selection factors Ø Eigenvector

1. Access to clean water 0.2234

2. Protection of soil, water, air and biodiversity 0.1961

3. Food and nutrition security 0.1782

4. Gender aspects 0.0991

5. Social cohesion and stability 0.0746

6. Social benefits and increased well-being 0.0652

7. Operation and maintenance (local resources) 0.0603

8. Investment costs 0.0366

9. Creation of "green jobs", new products/markets 0.0349

10. Energy security / reliability 0.0315

11

Case study: RET selection – South Africa

Result of the Analytical Hierarchy Process12 with key informants (n = 4)

RE systems Ø Eigenvector

1. Integrated Food and Energy System 0.2115

2. Rocket stove 0.1167

3. Solar water heater coil 0.1154

4. Biodigester 0.1098

5. Solar geyser 0.0966

6. Photovoltaic light system 0.0775

Step 1:

Step 2:

12. Saaty 1990

12

Case study: RET selection – India

Result of the Analytical Hierarchy Process13

Selection factors Ø Eigenvector

1. Ease of daily activities 0.1669

2. Government support 0.1591

3. Land requirement 0.1504

4. Environmental Conservation 0.1358

5. Investment costs 0.1250

6. Reduced energy expenditures 0.1107

7. Energy security 0.0958

8. Skill development 0.0563

RE systems Ø Eigenvector

1. Solar-PV System 0.2934

2. Solar-Irrigation System 0.2925

3. Integrated food and energy system 0.2404

4. Biodigester 0.1953

Farmers (n = 7) Key informants (n = 3)

Key informants Selection factors Ø Eigenvector

1. Government support 0.4328

2. Investment costs 0.2553

3. Land requirement 0.1314

4. Reduced energy expenditures 0.0742

5. Energy security 0.0485

6. Ease of daily activities 0.0366

7. Environmental Conservation 0.0118

8. Skill development 0.0093

RE systems Ø Eigenvector

1. Biodigester 0.3193

2. Integrated food and energy system 0.3126

3. Solar-PV System 0.1966

4. Solar-Irrigation System 0.1710

Step 1:

Step 2:

13. Saaty 1990

India:

• Initiative by progressive farmers: Solutions for current issues related to farming:

climate change, irrigation, soil fertility depletion, prices – input / output

and lifestyle: modern energy, reliable technologies, independence, education

Selected RET:

• Self-sustainable, reliable and clean energy

• Adapted to individual needs

13

Case study: Summary

South Africa:

• Initiative by traditional leaders: Utilization of assets and natural resources

for self-sustainable community development

Selected RET:

• Simple, cheap and made from locally available resources and materials

• Show cases for educational purpose

• Implementation potential determined by complex interaction of

social, institutional, environmental, technical and economic factors

on local to regional level

Bottom-up assessment of locally relevant factors

Involvement of intended users in the selection

• of suitable and available renewable resources – in particular for biomass

• of locally appropriate renewable energy technologies

IREPA provides a suitable approach to encourage the effective implementation

of RET into smallholder farming systems in rural areas

14

Conclusion

THANK YOU

FOR YOUR ATTENTION !

“When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know;

But when you listen, you may learn something new.”

Dalai Lama XIV

References

Amigun B., Musango J. K., Brent A.C. (2011)

Community perspectives on the introduction of biodiesel production in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa,

Energy (36), p. 2502-2508.

Banks D. and Schäffler J. (2006).

The potential contribution of renewable energy in South Africa. RAPS Consulting, Rondebosch, South Africa.

Barry M-L., Steyn H., Brent A.C. (2011)

Selection of renewable energy technologies for Africa: Eight case studies in Rwanda, Tanzania and Malawi.

Renewable Energy (36), p. 2845-2852.

Brohmann B, Fritsche U, Hunecke K (2006)

Bioenergy Village Juhnde, 2006. Available at: http://www.esteem-tool.eu/fileadmin/esteem-tool/docs/CASE_6_def.pdf,

accessed 15.07.2012.

Callejón-Ferre A.J. Velázquez-Martí B., López-Martínez J.A., Manzano-Agugliaro F. (2011)

Greenhouse crop residues: Energy potential and models for the prediction of their higher heating value.

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (15), p. 948-955.

CD4CDM - Capacity development for the clean development mechanism (2009)

Mini-Biogas Plants for Households. Working paper Series: Working Paper No. 8 2009 – PoA CDM Manual.

http://cd4cdm.org/publications/poamanualbiogashouseholds.pdf, accessed 27.11.2012.

Chambers R. (1994)

The Origins and Practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal. World Development (22), p. 953-969.

Chandrasekharam D. and Chandrasekhar V. (2015)

Geothermal Energy Resources, India: Country Update. Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2015.

References

Chen Y., Okudan G.E., Riley D.R. (2010)

Decision support for construction method selection in concrete buildings: Prefabrication adoption and optimization.

Automation in Construction (19), p. 665–675.

De Vries B. J. M., van Vuuren D. P., Hoogwijk M. (2007)

Renewable energy sources: Their global potential for the first-half of the 21st century at a global level: An integrated approach.

Energy Policy (35): p. 2590-2610.

Dornburg V., Faaij A., Verweij P. (2008)

Biomass Assessment Assessment of global biomass potentials and their links to food, water, biodiversity, energy demand and

economy. Climate Change Scientific Assessment And Policy Analysis - Main report. Available at: http://www.globio.info/

downloads/87/Report+-+Dornburg+et+al+(2008)+Biomass+Assessment+-+supporti.pdf, accessed 15.07.2012.

DWEA - Department of Water and Environmental Affairs South Africa (2012)

Mngazi. http://www.dwaf.gov.za/hydrology/HyData.aspx?Station=T7H001100.00&DataType=Monthly

&StartDT=1970-06-23&EndDT=2012-09-17, accessed 12.11.2012).

FNR - Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe eV (2016)

Faustzahlen Biogas. http://biogas.fnr.de/daten-und-fakten/faustzahlen/, accessed 10.02.2016.

García V.G. and Bartolomé M.M. (2010)

Rural electrification systems based on renewable energy: The social dimensions of an innovative technology.

Technology in Society (32), p. 303-311.

Green, D. (2004)

Thailand’s solar white elephants: an analysis of 15 yr of solar battery charging programmes in northern Thailand.

Energy Policy (32), p. 747–760.

References

Gross R., Leach M., Bauen A. (2003)

Progress in renewable energy - review. Environment International (29), p. 105-122.

Gunaseelan V.N. (2004)

Biochemical methane potential of fruits and vegetable solid waste feedstocks. Biomass and Bioenergy (26), p. 389-399.

Hart T. (2008)

Demystifying participatory research and its role in development. Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology,

Occasional Paper No. 21, University of Stellenbosch.

Helio-Clim 3 database (2012)

Solar Irradiation v2. http://www.soda-is.com/eng/services/services_radiation_free_eng.php, accessed 11.08.2012.

Hoogwijk M. (2004)

On the global and regional potential of renewable energy sources (PhD. Thesis, University Utrecht)

http://www.mnp.nl/images/thesisMHoogwijk_tcm61-28001.pdf, accessed 02.10.2011.

IAASTD (International assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development) (2009)

Synthesis report with executive summary - a synthesis of the global and sub-global IAASTD reports. McIntyre, D.H., Herren,

H.R., Wakhungu, J., Watson, R.T. (eds.). Island Press, Washington DC.

IRENA-DBFZ (2013)

Biomass Potentials in Africa. Report. Prepared by Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum gGmbH (DBFZ) for the International

Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). IRENA Headquarters, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. http://www.irena.org/

DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA-DBFZ_Biomass%20Potential%20in%20Africa.pdf , accessed 08.01.2014.

References

Jölli D. and Giljum S. (2005)

Unused biomass extraction in agriculture, forestry and fishery. Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI), Vienna, Austria.

http://seri.at/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/SERI-Studies3.pdf, accessed 10.02.2016.

Lfl - Bayerische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft (2007)

Methanproduktivität nachwachsender Rohstoffe in Biogasanlagen.

http://www.lfl.bayern.de/mam/cms07/publikationen /daten/informationen/p_27455.pdf, accessed 14.10.2012.

Moriarty P. and Honnery D. (2012)

What is the global potential for renewable energy? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (16), p. 244-252.

Moyo B., Dube S., Lesoli M., Masika P.J. (2010)

Herbaceous biomass, species composition and soil properties of key grazing patches in coastal forest thornveld and two

grassland types of the Eastern Cape province, South Africa. African Journal of Range & Forage Science (27) Iss. 3, p. 151-162.

NASA SMSE - Surface meteorology and Solar Energy (2015)

https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/sse/RETScreen/, accessed 22.01.2015.

NEO - NASA Earth Observations (2015)

http://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=MOD17A2_M_PSN, accessed 22.01.2015.

NEO - NASA Earth Observations (2012)

http://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/Search.html?datasetId=MOD17A2_M_PSN, accessed 14.10.2012.

Osuhor C.U., Alawa J.P., Akpa G.N. (2002)

Research note: Manure production by goats grazing native pasture in Nigeria. Tropical Grasslands (36), p. 123-125.

References

Parua P.K. (2010)

The Ganga - Water use in the Indian Subcontinent. Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London NY.

Patil V.S. and Deshmukh H.V. (2015)

Biomethanation Potential Study of Individual and Combined Vegetable Market Wastes.

International Research Journal of Environment Sciences (4) Issue 7, p. 75-80.

Resch G, Held A, Faber Th, Panzer Ch, Toro F, Haas R (2008)

Potentials and prospects for renewable energies at global scale. Energy Policy (36), p. 4048-4056

Saaty T.L. (1990)

How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operations Research (48), p. 9-26.

Scoones I. (1998)

Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis. IDS Working Paper 72.

Smeets E. M. W., Faaji A. P. C., Lewandowski I. M., Turkenburg W. C. (2007)

A bottom-up assessment and review of global bio-energy potentials to 2050.

Progress in Energy and Combustion Science (33), p. 56-106.

Stirling, A. (2014)

Transforming power: Social science and the politics of energy choices. Energy Research & Social Science (1), p. 83-95.

Thrän D., Seidenberger T., Zeddies J., Offermann R. (2010)

Global biomass potentials - Resources, drivers and scenario results. Energy for sustainable development (14), p. 200-205.

References

Urmila G., Sooch S.S., Jain A.K., Gautam A. (2012)

Fabrication and Performance Evaluation of Paddy Straw Based Biogas Digester. International Journal of Engineering Research

and Applications (2) Iss. 3, pp. 946-949.

Velasquez M. and Hester P.T. (2013)

An Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods. International Journal of Operations Research (10) Iss. 2, p. 56-66.

WASA - Wind Atlas South Africa (2012)

http://wasadata.csir.co.za/wasa1/NWA_downloads.html, accessed 12.11.2012)

RE-Symbols:

Cho A. (2010). Energy’s Tricky Tradeoffs. Science (329): p. 786-787.

THANK YOU

FOR YOUR ATTENTION !

“When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know;

But when you listen, you may learn something new.”

Dalai Lama XIV

The University of Hohenheim