Why is Biogas not widely used as a household energy option in humanitarian shelter?
Issue 59 of Boiling Point (published by HEDON.info), titled Energy in Conflict and Emergency Relief, makes no significant reference to Biogas despite a growing household fuel crisis.
Given the trend towards a substantial increase in the frequency and magnitude of hydro-meteorological disasters linked to climate change and the corresponding increase in human displacement, it seems imperative that measures should be sought to ensure that transitional settlements are able to meet appropriate habitation standards. Finding a secure and sustainable energy supply is already a key concern.
In addition to the problem of human displacement is the increased risk of conflict as displaced populations move into regions where natural resources, such as water and firewood, are already scarce. An urgent concern with regard to the use of firewood as a household fuel in East African refugee camps are the frequent violent attacks on women who traditionally take responsibility for firewood procurement, a task that becomes increasingly dangerous as diminishing supplies must be sought further afield, often in hostile territory.
Where a refugee camp has no access to firewood the only available fuels are imported, expensive and therefore commit the displaced population to dependency on external aid. Importing fuel poses the additional problem of supply security, which may be impacted by regional conflict or an increase in market prices.
So what are the barriers that prevent the use of biogas in humanitarian aid? Here’s a method of producing cooking fuel that can use human waste as a feedstock solving sanitation problems. A potential energy cycle producing nutrient-rich fertilizer that could be used to enable local food production. Why don’t biogas digesters feature in the kit list of all the major humanitarian relief agencies… Is there simply a lack of information?
- Login or register to post comments
- 3346 reads
- Printer-friendly version
Why isn't biogas used more widely in general?
I agree with the principles of your question. But I think the problem is a lack of knowledge in general (not just in the humanitarian sector) about biogas.
I don't believe biogas is particularly easy to make efficiently, I've heard the guidelines on it are not particularly good and I believe many people are not comfortable using a product made from their own waste. If you were to introduce biogas in to refugee camps then you would have to introduce biogas burners (is this realistic?), you'd need to store it somewhere en masse (is this safe?) and you'd need to build large biogas generators (are the skills available to do this?).
On top of all that, if major aid organisations were to provide biogas generators kits there should be a consensus about how to do it. This could take forever! But I don't think I'd be particularly pleased with a malconstructed biogas generator near my rapidly constructed shelter.
I agree, biogas is a brilliant idea and I really support its use. But in an emergency situation perhaps it is better to take a less radical step and consider what is used already; such as mapping the value chain of firewood or introducing fuel efficient stoves.
Perhaps a better question is why aren't biogas generators included in reconstruction strategies or DRR methodologies - or even just in development practices? One of the biggest problems, I think, is the acceptance of the technology due to it's less than savoury main ingredient.
A few points here if I
A few points here if I may.
Biogas plants produce gas for cooking and slurry for fertising plants. They can deal with human sewage, and a huge variety of organic waste (straw, sawdust, food waste, animal dung, etc.) so they could deal with a large degree of solid waste around communities.
There are plastic drum models that could be used in IDP/ Refugee camps, but only where the camp is there for a long time. When it's short term displacement, there's no point. Then our funding and programmes usually morph into early recovery / assistance for return. Agreed? At this point we engage in shelter and WASH, usually building latrines etc. for sewage (very rarely are these properly designed and septic water spills out into community or people have to manually empty the tanks. Another story, another time.
So: why not build biogas plants in communities of return?
People would say there is a taboo to using human waste. OK don't do it in those commuinties. In Pakistan where I work i was told there is a deep rooted and national taboo around using human waste for anything. Then I spent a week in rural communities in Southern Sindh and asked everyone this question. Not one of them had a problem with using human waste in a possible biogas programme.
It's expensive, others say. Sure, it's about 7 times the cost of a septic tank, but it produces gas! So calculate the savings made from not buying firewood. (one to two year payback). And illnesses from constant smoke-in-your-face awful fire thing that women and girls are subject to their whole lives. There is a health and well-being value there. Then there's slurry, so plant trees, create shade, fruit, food, these would improve the water table, improve soil quality, etc.
Multiple benfits, one input.
Sure lots of training and mobilisation needed. DO NOT build it and walk away. That would be bad, no doubt.
Technical capcity is no problem. Local expertise exists in most countries, if it doesn't import it for a short time. Train the local technical school.
I built one at my home in Portugal. Fairly straightforward. And if I could get my head around it, anyone can!
Biogas
I guess because the immediate priority is to dispose of excreta safely and that is a challenge enough without adding the additional cost and complication of biogas. Also latrines to have any chance need to be at household or compound level asap - so costs would be high. Institutions (schools etc.) might be more suitable but again there are challenges in getting the excreta contained/underground and latrines maintained which are considerable...
The Belgium NGO Borda is a
The Belgium NGO Borda is a good contact point for this
as is the Indonesian NGO Diang Desa
Both have offices in Yogyakarta, both work on Biogas and other waste harvesting systems
dave
Biogas not sustainable in AfricA
The first generation’ biofuels is more costly to our environment and generates more greenhouse gas emissions. It is less beneficial to Sub Saharan Africa because carbon-rich tropical forests are being cleared to create “biofuels carbon debt”. It is associated with water scarcity and deforestation of native vegetation for monoculture in coastal areas and forestlands.No wonder people are not interested in it