“…Biogas digesters can also improve rural livelihoods through energy cost savings and reduced labor to harvest wood and by providing organic fertilizers that can enrich soil fertility [16][17][18]. The introduction of biogas energy sources, for instance, in China and India, has effectively improved livelihoods of rural communities where it has considerably decreased the dependence on energy consumption from fossil and wood sources [16,[19][20][21][22].…”
Background: Increasing energy demands on farm households in Ethiopia have escalated challenges related to land degradation, indoor air quality, and rural economic development. Soil deterioration followed by reduced carbon sequestration compounds the adverse effects of environmental degradation and climate change. The Ethiopian government has disseminated thousands of bio-digesters across rural villages with the hope that introducing biodigesters to rural farm households would address all of these issues. However, there is scant information about how households make energy choices and consequently how the introduction of biogas energy will affect income and the environment in these rural agricultural communities. Therefore, this study aims to verify how biogas energy adopters make decisions about their energy consumption and how biogas energy use compares to traditional alternatives such as firewood, charcoal, and dried animal dung. Methods: Quantitative data were gathered using semi-structured questionnaires of 300 farmers in the Tigray region of Ethiopia, following the collection of qualitative data obtained via focus groups. Using descriptive analysis, we quantified weekly consumption of traditional energy sources and major reasons why households choose each energy source. We estimated a multivariate probit model and conducted correlation tests to verify the use of biogas energy as a substitute or complement for traditional energy sources. Results: Results show that a household's choice for biogas energy was statistically and positively correlated to both firewood and charcoal use. Despite biogas digester adoption in several households, the majority continue to depend upon traditional energy sources. This suggests that overall household energy consumption increases with the availability of biogas digesters. The study reveals that the size of cattle holding, working age, gender, access to electricity, access to credit services, and livestock mobility influence household energy choices. Conclusions: The study concludes that household biogas energy use remains below expectations, even though subsidies make the units affordable for small farmers. We assert that households are more likely to adopt technologies that facilitate cooking food, baking injera, and preparing coffee. Biogas utilization might improve if farmers have access to improved stoves and credit services. However, policy makers also need to consider the possibility that providing access to biogas digesters may actually increase the use of traditional fuel sources and have the reverse effect than that intended.
“…Biogas digesters can also improve rural livelihoods through energy cost savings and reduced labor to harvest wood and by providing organic fertilizers that can enrich soil fertility [16][17][18]. The introduction of biogas energy sources, for instance, in China and India, has effectively improved livelihoods of rural communities where it has considerably decreased the dependence on energy consumption from fossil and wood sources [16,[19][20][21][22].…”
Background: Increasing energy demands on farm households in Ethiopia have escalated challenges related to land degradation, indoor air quality, and rural economic development. Soil deterioration followed by reduced carbon sequestration compounds the adverse effects of environmental degradation and climate change. The Ethiopian government has disseminated thousands of bio-digesters across rural villages with the hope that introducing biodigesters to rural farm households would address all of these issues. However, there is scant information about how households make energy choices and consequently how the introduction of biogas energy will affect income and the environment in these rural agricultural communities. Therefore, this study aims to verify how biogas energy adopters make decisions about their energy consumption and how biogas energy use compares to traditional alternatives such as firewood, charcoal, and dried animal dung. Methods: Quantitative data were gathered using semi-structured questionnaires of 300 farmers in the Tigray region of Ethiopia, following the collection of qualitative data obtained via focus groups. Using descriptive analysis, we quantified weekly consumption of traditional energy sources and major reasons why households choose each energy source. We estimated a multivariate probit model and conducted correlation tests to verify the use of biogas energy as a substitute or complement for traditional energy sources. Results: Results show that a household's choice for biogas energy was statistically and positively correlated to both firewood and charcoal use. Despite biogas digester adoption in several households, the majority continue to depend upon traditional energy sources. This suggests that overall household energy consumption increases with the availability of biogas digesters. The study reveals that the size of cattle holding, working age, gender, access to electricity, access to credit services, and livestock mobility influence household energy choices. Conclusions: The study concludes that household biogas energy use remains below expectations, even though subsidies make the units affordable for small farmers. We assert that households are more likely to adopt technologies that facilitate cooking food, baking injera, and preparing coffee. Biogas utilization might improve if farmers have access to improved stoves and credit services. However, policy makers also need to consider the possibility that providing access to biogas digesters may actually increase the use of traditional fuel sources and have the reverse effect than that intended.
“…Such a tank should be hermetic and watertight to create anaerobic conditions. No strong limitations are present on the construction materials, its shape and size [56,63,64]. It must include a method of filling the slurry as well as a way of extracting the biogas.…”
Section: Anaerobic Digester Structure and Layoutmentioning
Organic waste (OW) management tackles the problem of sanitation and hygiene in developing countries and humanitarian camps where unmanaged waste often causes severe health problems and premature death. OW still has a usable energy content, allowing biogas production, potentially contributing to satisfy the local needs, e.g., cooking, lighting and heating. Digesters are the devices converting OW into biogas under anaerobic conditions. They are simple and effective solutions for the OW management in rural areas, humanitarian camps and remote developing regions, producing energy and fertilizers for local farming as residual. This paper describes the design and lab-test of a domestic OW management system integrating a waterless toilet with a small-scale digester producing safe biogas for local micro-consumption. Starting from people's needs and an extensive review of the current state-of-art technology, the proposed system's key innovation and strength is the combination of effectiveness and a very simple construction, set up and use, fitting with the rural conditions and raw materials available within the emerging countries. A small-scale prototype is assembled and lab-tested assessing the quantity-i.e., productivity-and quality-i.e., composition and methane content-of the produced biogas. The measured productivity in terms of specific biogas production (SBP) is of about 0.15 m 3 /kg SV and a methane content of about 74% in mass match the energy needs of domestic users, encouraging the spread of such systems in developing regions and rural areas.
“…The anaerobic process consists of essentially 4 sub-processes or stages, namely hydrolysis, acidogenesis (fermentation), acetogenesis/dehydrogenation and methanogenesis [94][95][96][97]. Each of these sub-processes uses different bacteria communities.…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.