ISSN: 0852-0682.
E-ISSN: 2460-3945
Forum Geografi.
Vol 29 .
December 2015: 114-127 Benefits of Rural.
(Tazi Hnyine et al.
Benefits of Rural Biogas Implementation to Economy and Environment: Boyolali Case Study Zakaria Tazi Hnyine 1.
Saut Sagala 2.
Wahyu Lubis 3.
Dodon Yamin 3 University of Twente.
The Netherlands Institut Teknologi Bandung Resilience Development Initiative Corresponding E-mail: ztazihnyine@gmail.
Abstract This paper aims to assess the benefits of rural biogas adoption from an economic perspective, through calculating the direct and indirect benefits obtained from biogas adoption in Selo.
Boyolali.
Central Java.
For this purpose, a field survey was carried out in Selo to ask questions to biogas users (N=.
and non-users (N=.
on their energy and fertilizer consumption, as well as emissions reductions resulting from biogas adoption.
Based on the analysis, on average, a household with biogas saves 490 kWh monthAe1, 20,000 IDR monthAe1,185 kg CO2e monthAe1.
Chemical fertilizer consumption remains remarkably high, which may due to a lack of awareness on the potential of digester slurry by the farmers, for indeed, reduction of chemical fertilizer use would help address some environmental Biogas quality of one household has also been determined by comparing its heating value to that of the methane percentage (MP) was approximately 31%.
The quality is considerably lower than expected from the literature .
around 60%), which may be due to the farmers neither mixing nor supplying water to the Training provide methods for improving overall digester effectiveness to particularly the women-folk may enhance digester management and thus biogas production, as they form the main primary operatives.
Despite the room for improvement, the existing results clearly show that biogas adoption significantly reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, household energy costs, workload, improves environmental conditions and generates income through carbon credit exchange.
Therefore, under the notions of sustainable development, environmental preservation and self-sufficiency, policy makers and NGOs should expedite their support in biogas development, by providing subsidies and awareness raising.
Keywords: benefits.
economic assessment Abstrak Paper ini bertujuan untuk menilai keuntungan .
angsung dan tidak langsun.
yang didapatkan dari penggunaan biogas di Selo.
Boyolali.
Jawa Tengah dari sisi ekonomi.
Survei lapangan dilakukan di Selo kepada para pengguna biogas (N=.
dan non-pengguna biogas (N=.
terkait konsumsi energi, pupuk, dan jumlah emisi yang berkurang setelah penggunaan biogas untuk mencapai tujuan tersebut.
Berdasarkan hasil analisis, rata-rata sebuah rumah tangga dengan biogas dapat menghemat 490 kWh.
Rp 20.
000,00, dan 185 kg CO2eper bulan.
Penggunaan pupuk kimia masih cukup tinggi, hal ini disebabkan karena kurangnya kesadaran terhadap manfaat slurry yang dihasilkan.
Kualitas biogas di suatu rumah tangga juga sudah didapatkan.
Persentase Methana (PM) diperkirakan sekitar Kualitasnya masih lebih rendah dari yang ada di literatur .
ekitar 60%), kemungkinan disebabkan karena petani tidak menambahkan air ke kotoran sapi.
Pelatihan peningkatan efektivitas digester khususnya untuk kaum perempuan sebagai pengguna utama dapat meningkatkan manajemen digester dan produksi biogas.
Selain itu, hasil yang ada jelas menunjukkan bahwa penggunaan biogas secara signifikan mengurangi emisi gas rumah kaca (GRK), biaya energi rumah tangga, beban kerja, meningkatkan kondisi lingkungan, dan menghasilkan pendapatan melalui pertukaran kredit karbon.
Oleh karena itu, di bawah gagasan pembangunan berkelanjutan, pelestarian lingkungan, dan pemenuhan kebutuhan hidup, pembuat kebijakan dan LSM harus mempercepat dukungan mereka dalam pengembangan biogas, misalnya dengan menyediakan subsidi dan peningkatan kesadaran.
Kata Kunci: biogas.
Availble online at http://Journals.
id/index.
php/fg/article/view/996 Forum Geografi.
Vol 29 .
December 2015: 114-127 Benefits of Rural.
(Tazi Hnyine et al.
Introduction As the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in reported that almost 75% of IndonesiaAos total food consumption and 85 million tons in agricultural and wood is wasted yearly, waste management in Indonesia has become problematic (Aprilia, 2013.
Rawlins et , 2.
Public health and the environment can suffer from severe damage as a result of uncontrolled waste disposal.
over two-thirds of the solid waste is disposed in open landfill sites, of which the remainder is mainly buried, burned, composted or simply unmanaged (Rawlins et al.
, 2.
Improper management may cause eutrophication of waterways and attract rodents, insects and parasites, which may considerably impede crop production and precipitate the spread of diseases (IAEA.
Furthermore, as stored manure bring about methane (CH.
emissions, a greenhouse gas (GHG) twenty-five as strong as CO2, it also contributes to environmental pollution on larger scales.
Proper agricultural waste management is therefore vital.
In Selo, an agriculture-based village to the north of Mt.
Merapi and to the south of Mt.
Merbabu in Central Java, similar problems existregarding waste management, as livestock keeping and crop productionare wide-spread.
Further, trees on the slopes of the two mountains have been chopped extensively and have mainly been used to provide for the local energy needs, resulting in a deforestation rate of over 90% (SLI, 2.
The deforestation in this areacauses land degradation and potential disasters .
It is worth to mention that this area is located at the slopes of a very active volcano of Mt.
Merapi.
The last eruption in 2010 caused huge economical damage to the surroundings of Mt.
Merapi (Wimbardana and Sagala, 2.
, although Selo was among the areas that experienced less harm.
In this area too, environmental preservation, resilience and sustainability is crucial, and waste management combined with sustainable energy production could be used as a means for this development.
The NGO Sahabat Lahan Indonesia (SLI) has therefore set the objective to developalmost 130 biogas installations by June 2015 (Mack, 2.
in Seloas part of the Merapi Landcare Project, in order to replace the energy resources the villagers use now, namely LPG and firewood, and to act as a means for improving rural waste management.
This goal has not been met entirely, as only around forty digesters were contructed (SLI, 2.
Nevertheless, biogas has been recognized as a technology with numerous environmental andsocio-economic benefits, for it is proven to, among other things, reduce CO2 and CH4 emissionsfrom reduced fossil energy consumption, generate income by capturing slurry and provide energy less costly.
As it also reduces time usedfor firewood collection and cooking, biogas usage seriously contributes to gender empowerment as well (Christiaensen and Heltberg, 2.
, despite the fact that most of the householdAos decisions are generally done by the male members of the household (SNV, 2.
This paper begins with a brief description of rural biogas adoption for farmers in different parts of Asia, in which the benefits of adoption in terms of health, environment and economy are discussed.
Also, foreign policy for biogas adoption is also briefly mentioned, followed by analysis of problems encountered during the development process.
Then, a transitory paragraph on general information of Selo is presented, after which the methods, results and conclusions of this research are given.
The aim of this paper is to assess the economic benefits and its greater potentials from installing household-size biogas digesters by using a case study performed in Selo.
Boyolali.
Biogas adoption in rural communities Many have seen the benefits of biogas adaptation in the rural communities, as the amount of constructed plants are in the increase, especially in times of environmental awareness and financial constraint.
Previously conducted case studies on introducing biogas installations in rural areas in Bangladesh (Biswas et al.
, 2.
Taktse (Tibe.
(Liu et al.
, and other parts of China (Chen et al.
Feng et al.
, 2012.
Li et al.
, 2005.
Zhang et al.
, 2.
provide preliminary information on rural energy and organic fertilizer development, environmental protection and health improvement.
In Taktse, energy consumption using conventional energy resources .
has led to serious health impairments as a result of discharged smoke when burning biomass directly for cooking (Liu et al.
, 2.
Also, entirely eliminating biomass from the crop fields had led to land degradation, soil erosion and desertification, which can be avoided by making use of biogas plants, as digester slurry will ensure the minerals inhabit the land again .
Furthermore, biogas usage will not bring about smoke production, thus eliminating health hazards biomass-burners would generally experience.
Comparable to the situation in Selo.
Taktse has also experienced severe deforestation due to firewood being the primary source of energy, which, in Taktse, resulted in desertification and soil erosion .
In 2001, similar studies were conducted in Bangladesh, which introduced renewable energy technologies (RET.
as a means for reducing said environmental Biswas et al.
suggest that RETs may also serve as tools for incomegeneration by selling fertilizer.
Fertilizer factories in Bangladesh would use up as much 5% of BangladeshAos total natural gas consumption (Biswas et al.
, 2.
, though two more recent studies present this ratio to have been decreased considerably, as they showed numbers of around 10% (Rahman et al.
, 2013,
Gomes, 2.
In Indonesia, the fertilizer industry also consumed a significant portion of as much as11% (The energy costs for ZA were estimated at 11 MJ kgAe1.
hardly influence the resul.
of IndonesiaAos total natural gas consumption in 2009 (Yasmin, 2013.
Salami et al.
, 2010.
Rachman and Sudaryanto, 2010.
Munawar et al.
, 2003,
Gellings and Parmenter, 2004.
CIA, 2015.
Bhat et al.
, 1.
, indicating considerable Forum Geografi.
Vol 29 .
December 2015: 114-127 Benefits of Rural.
(Tazi Hnyine et al.
opportunities for reduction in CO2 emissions.
As biogas installations also provide organic fertilizer in the form of slurry, farmers could significantly reduce and even nullify the amount of synthetic fertilizer they would have to purchase and thus also reduce greenhouse emissions emitted from the industry.
China has administered many projects in favour of biogas energy adoption since the 1970s and made these household-scale plants affordable by subsidizing it momentously (Chen et al.
, 2010.
Feng et al.
, 2012.
Li et al.
Liu et al.
, 2008.
Zhang et al.
, 2.
In Yunnan, both provincial and local county governments together accounted for 50% of the costs, due to which aChinese farmer would be able to redeem his personal investments in less than two years (Li et al.
, 2.
In many other areas, farmers made use of subsidies and bond funds (Zhang et al.
, 2.
The Chinese governmentAos great efforts to popularize biogas resulted in an exponential growth of plants between 1978 and 2007, wherein over 25 million plants were built by the end of 2007 .
Farmers themselves built these digesters as Auunder the principle of selfbuilding, self-managing and self-usingAy, after having received subsidies and training .
Thus.
Auunder policy encouragement and legal protectionAy, biogas in China provides 1.
MWh annually (Feng et al.
, 2.
Despite ChinaAos effort, the industry faces poor management, lack of materials, skilled labour, technical personnel and policy support .
As both Authe majority of biogas users have not received technical trainingAy and biogas literate staff were limited, only 60% of the plants still worked by 2007 (Chen et al.
, 2.
Also, a study in Yunnan (Li et al.
, 2.
showed that farmers would still use firewood as an energy resource due to low income.
Indonesian Center for Agricultural Engineering Research and Development (ICAERD) research project on biogas also identified a lack of technical expertise by the staff, user-unfriendliness of the plant and high production costs (Widodo and Hendriadi, 2.
In fact, the local government of Boyolali carried out a biogas Forum Geografi.
Vol 29 .
December 2015: 114-127 Benefits of Rural.
(Tazi Hnyine et al.
project in the 1990s, although unsuccessful due to slow progress and high costs (SLI.
SLI, however, already planned to reduce aforementioned problems from occurring by designing cost-friendly plants, arranging quarterly bulletins, radio talk shows, field training on biogas development and training on slurry processing, over the course of 18 months (SLI, 2.
Albeit on a smaller scale than in China, farmers in Selo receive subsidized prices of the plants as well and may also receive additional funding using a community managed revolving credit scheme .
Background information of Selo As of 2013.
Selo counts 27,198 citizens (BPS, 2.
, of which most are occupied in agriculture predominantly cabbage, carrot, cauliflower and mustard and has to cope with land degradation, land slide formation and difficulties in disaster risk reduction, which all are in relation with Mt.
MerapiAos active volcanic activity (Sagala et al.
, 2.
Next to cow dung , crop residues may also be used in biogas digesters most farmers own livestock.
predominantly in the form of cows (SLI, 2015.
Idat G.
Permana, 2.
Assuming that one bundle of firewood amounts to approximately 15 kg, having a calorific value of about 15.
5 MJ kgAe1 (Centre, 2.
at a moisture content of a little less than 19% (Sinaga, 1.
, around 1.
5 GJ of firewood is burnt by a household in Selo per month, adding up to a total of about 2 GJ per month when accounting for LPG as well (SLI, 2.
Then, if one plant produces around 10.
3 kWh dayAe1 .
9 MJ dayAe.
, 1.
1 GJ in energy could be saved monthly (Feng et al.
, 2.
Various entities influence the development of sustainable biogas development.
Farmers form the main group of stakeholders, as they will have to purchase, implement and maintain the biogas plants.
Further, the local government is a stakeholder as well and forms the executive branch of governance, making their core responsibility policy implementation (Cahyat, 2.
The Bappeda .
the local governmentAos regional development planning agenc.
plays a major role in project budget allocation and so has the most influence in local governance .
Dinas, the local governmentAos external service provider, could aid in enhancing education services and public infrastructure and thus behaves as a key player as well .
The national government is of less direct influence, yet remains important as it could, for instance, allocate more funds into rural energy development and thus has the power to enhance biogas production momentouslyAithe case of China clearly displays this.
Furthermore.
SLI acts as the primary initiator and organizer of the biogas project in Selo, and provides the villagers, in collaboration with Mt.
Merapi National Park, funding, micro-education .
, raises awareness, and monitors and evaluates the development process.
As various stakeholders play a part in the development process, it may be wise to develop a multi-stakeholder platform on the basis of public-private partnership, as suggested by SNV in order to ensure ownership, accountability and transparency during all stages of the development process (Ghimire, 2.
Research Method Data collection and tool In order to gather direct information on the acquired benefits from biogas adoption of farmers in Boyolali, questionnaires have been set up.
The questionnaires included questions on basic information on the farmerAos household, energy consumption and costs of both biogas users and non-users.
The survey also included questions on the benefits and costs adopters have experienced themselves.
A field survey was carried out in Selo to ask questions to biogas users (N=.
and nonusers (N=.
on their energy and fertilizer consumption, as well as emissions reductions resulting from biogas adoption in July 2015.
Data collection method As the data originated from specific entities only, farmers who do not use biogas (N=.
and farmers who do (N=.
, the collection method is performed in the form of homogeneous, purposive sampling.
A AoMerapi LandcareAo biogas facilitator provided the names of the farmers who had digesters installed.
Then, ten non-biogas users were interviewed and twenty biogas users of which the digesters ranged from 4 m3 to 12 m3 in size were interviewed in a span of three days.
The interviews were semi-structured, in that the interviewee could provide more information if needed.
Further, the interviews were held directly, in private, and inside their own households, in order to ensure all questions are properly understood and to minimize non-response (Dialsingh.
Lastly, experiments for determining the heating value of biogas were also performed, of which the methods are explained in further detail in the next section.
Data analysis Data from interviews were summarized into a problem tree to show the causal-effect relations of energy and environmental problems in the studied area.
Some quantatitative data were obtained and analyzed with descriptive statistics to obtain the household, biogas digester and energy profiles of the studied Data related to biogas usage were used to estimate the total energy output from biogas, which is further explained in the next In addition.
CO2 emissions per household were calculated and compared among biogas users and non-users.
Finally, a solution tree was also provided as to suggest possible actions to address related socio-economic, environmental, and energy problems in Boyolali district.
Biogas usage is compared by presenting both householdsAo current situations these are in terms of energy consumption.
GHG emissions and financial costs and that of nonuser households.
The total costs and energy consumption of a farmer were determined according Eqs.
1 and 2 respectively.
Cplant is Forum Geografi.
Vol 29 .
December 2015: 114-127 Benefits of Rural.
(Tazi Hnyine et al.
the purchasing cost for the biogas plant.
Crun the running costs of the plant per unit time, ci the specific costs of a product i per unit time per unit mass or volume, with i = (Eq.
(Eq.
(Eq.
1,2,3,4 which are LPG, wood, fertilizer and biogas respectively.
The same is done for determining the energy consumption in Eq.
3, where ei is the heat of combustion () of a fuel or, in the case of fertilizer, the production energy needed per mass.
Eel is the amount of energy consumed from electricity.
The heat of combustion for biogas can be estimated at around 20 - 40 MJ mAe3 though it would be more accurate to determine it experimentally, which can be done by heating water with a known amount of volume with See Eq.
3 for the expression of the formula used for this experiment: is the density, the specific heat capacity, the temperature at time point p and an estimated efficiency of the stove.
The heating value for wood is also determined using Eq.
The amount of biogas used is determined by multiplying the average volumetric flow rate with which biogas flows through the stove times the amount of time needed to heat the water see Eq.
The average flow rate is determined from the survey.
Further, to estimate the volume-percentage of methane (MP) Eq.
5 is used.
Biogas adoption of households will also have an impact on GHG, and will thus also be calculated.
Solely the differences in CO2 emissions will be determined, for these make up for the greatest share of emissions from LPG and wood.
Note that, for simplification, only emissions from burning the fuels are taking into account, meaning no other sources of CO2 emissions such Forum Geografi.
Vol 29 .
December 2015: 114-127 Benefits of Rural.
(Tazi Hnyine et al.
(Eq.
(Eq.
Table 1.
Parameters used in the model Quantity Value Unit MJ kgAe1 MJ kgAe1 MJ kg MJ kgAe1 MJ kgAe1 kg CO2 kgAe1 kg CO2 kgAe1 g CO2 kgAe1 kg CO2 MJAe1 kg mAe3 J kgAe1KAe1 Ae1 as those from production or transportation are accounted for.
Biogas combustion is carbon neutral, and thus will neither contribute to the emission rates, also using the previous Burning wood is considered not carbon neutral, as the trees cut are not See Eq.
The energy usageis in MJ monthAe1, and is the specific carbon dioxide .
emission in kg CO2 MJAe1 or methane emission .
in kg CH4 MJAe1.
Also, is used as the Global Warming Potential.
Finally.
Table 1 lists the values and units of the quantities used in the calculations (Quaschning, 2013.
Chemicals, 1999.
Francescato et al.
Shrestha, 2001.
Pathak et al.
, 2.
Results and discussion Problems and approaches in Selo Based on the interviews, several problems in Selo and their causal-relationship and how it is (Eq.
seen from causal-relationship perspective.
The problem started with a low awareness of the environmental problems by the community, which induces little policy making and monetary aid for RET development and adoption (Turnbull et al.
, 2.
This precipitates unsustainable activities in household energy production, namely cutting trees for firewood and burning LPG, which have negative effects on womenAos workload, health, financing, micro-environment .
and degradatio.
and macro-environment .
lobal These problems are inter-related and are portrayed in Figure 1 in the form of a problem tree.
Moreover, these problems are expected to reduce in size through biogas adoption, of which the solution tree is portrayed in Figure 2.
Health problems and land degradation are phenomena difficult to measure in a short period of time, so only the effects of biogas adoption on the energy usage, workload and fertilizer consumption are analysed land degradation cannot be solved with the help of biogas digesters, for, in Selo, creating room for agriculture forms the main cause for deforestation.
Forum Geografi.
Vol 29 .
December 2015: 114-127 Benefits of Rural.
(Tazi Hnyine et al.
Figure 1 Problem tree of environmental and energy problems in a rural area Figure 2 Solution tree of environmental and energy problems in a rural area Forum Geografi.
Vol 29 .
December 2015: 114-127 Benefits of Rural.
(Tazi Hnyine et al.
Biogas Yes (N=.
(N=.
Age .
(E =.
(E =.
Digester size .
) Household size (-) (E =.
(E =.
Table 2.
Average household profile Income (IDR Expenses (IDR monthAe.
monthAe.
1,762,500 2,364,706 (E =0.
(E =0.
1,875,000
1,575,000
(E =0.
(E =0.
Table 3.
Average biogas digester profile Amount of digesters (-) Purchasing costs (IDR) 2,5 million 3,3 million 2,8 million 5 million 5 million Cows (-) Land .
(E =.
(E =.
(E =2 x.
(E =2 x.
Water supplied .
itres dayAe.
0 (E =.
10 (E =.
9 (E =.
0 (E =.
3 (E =.
Rural household and biogas digester profile Table 5.
Mean monthly costs (*collecting wood, cooking, walking, collecting and supplying dun.
Fertilizer Electricity Total costs Time spent* .
Biogas LPG (IDR) Wood (IDR) (IDR) (IDR) (IDR) Yes (N=.
17,986 24,233 31,917 71,069 No (N=.
55,367 30,833 21,389 91,417 Biogas Yes (N=.
No (N=.
LPG .
Table 4.
Mean monthly energy usage Wood .
Electricity .
Fertilizer .
Tables 2 and 3 show an overview of rural biogas userAos household and digester profile.
Even though the farmers also cultivate other crops primarily carrot, cabbage and tobacco all surveyed biogas users only use cow dung and urine as their digester input, having digesters ranging from 4 m3 to 12 m3.
Water is only added for making the dung flow through the pipes which connect the cowsheds with the digesters, of which water scarcity is a major factor.
Further, a mean of 3.
2 cows per household were measured, with a standard deviation of about 2.
5 cows.
Due to the large standard deviations, it is statistically impossible to connect the mean differences in income to not having adopted to biogas .
=0.
, although Total energy .
4/5th did mention their low income as the main factor for not having done so.
One would need at least eight more samples for the difference to be significant .
<0.
Furthermore, the farmers were not able to determine the amount of dung that was supplied to the digesters, nor could they mention the amount of biogas they would use per unit time, because none of the users had a flow meter installedAifour users did have a water-filled U-tube manometer, yet it is difficult to use these to relate pressure differences in absolute amounts of biogas Remarkably, biogas usage has not reduced monthly expenses .
=0.
In the next section, energy consumption, costs and emission will be examined in detail, which will show that the differences in Forum Geografi.
Vol 29 .
December 2015: 114-127 Benefits of Rural.
(Tazi Hnyine et al.
energy consumption in fact are considerable, which in turn may indicate a shift in overall consumption rather than the expected absolute For determining the heat of combustion, the experiment mentioned in the previous chapter was conducted, due to time constraints, only twice and at one household that had adopted a 4 m3-sized digester.
The biogas had a heating value of only 16A1.
5 MJ mAe3, with an MP of 31A6%, which resemble the values found in the literature in order of magnitude .
-70%, (Esfandiari et al.
, 2.
), although considerably A slight correction through adding vessel calefaction showed it contributing only in the 10-1 MJ order of magnitude.
A variable strongly influencing the calculation is the unknown and thus assumed stove efficiency:
a variation of -5% would already lead to a calculated MP of 40%.
Nevertheless, a more apprehensible explanation for the relatively low heat of combustion is that it may be caused by the household owner not mixing the dung with any water and, in fact, not mixing the dung at all (Naik et al.
, 2.
The daily ambient temperature fluctuations of 15oC to 31oC during all seasons in Selo also negatively influence biogas quality .
MP) (Sorathia et al.
, 2.
Finally, a heating value of 18.
MJ/kg was found for the wood, which closely resembles the range of values one finds in Table 6.
Average CO2 emissions per household Biogas LPG emission .
g CO2 eq.
Wood emission .
g CO2 eq.
Fertilizer emission .
g CO2 eq.
Total emission .
g CO2 eq.
Yes (N=.
No (N=.
Higher biogas quality could be obtained by creating more awareness amongst the users and by teaching them women especially, as they are the main operators in the cowsheds the skills to act upon it.
Some principal steps that could lead to enhancing the quality are adding water to the dung and mixing it.
The issue on water scarcity for mixing dung may demand water acquisition techniques such as rainwater harvesting.
It is recommended to conduct additional research on this issue to further assess the possibilities in improving biogas production.
Lastly, collective action at village level may help to increase digester benefits, for Sagala et al.
found that collective action among the villagers in Mt.
Merapi plays an important role in development andis found to be particularly effective in rural areas, since social capital is still high due to their common interests and close social ties.
and fertilizer consumption, which directly influence the farmersAo micro-economic Worth mentioning in particular is that all interviewees mentioned that, in a 6-year period, no costs for maintenance were disbursed at all whether this is due to non-necessity or unawareness is unknown.
The purchasing costs signified the only financial barrier for biogas usage.
Moreover, a household saves approximately 490 kWh monthAe1, replacing significant amounts of energy taken from LPG and wood in particular.
See Tables 4 and 5 for an overview of the average monthly energy consumption and energy cost structure.
Noteworthy is that they also show that chemical fertilizer consumption per surface area remains virtually equal, despite the advantage of having digester slurry available, which results in users missing out on the potential in the financial benefits from the As the digester only provides 20,000 Energy and fertilizer consumption, costs IDR monthly, an average of 13 years would be needed to cover the purchasing costsover and environmental impacts 10 years longer than initially projected by SLI.
The survey clearly shows differences between Finally, a considerably positive effect .
<0.
biogas users and non-users in fossil fuel of biogas usage is seen in the hours spent on Forum Geografi.
Vol 29 .
December 2015: 114-127 Benefits of Rural.
(Tazi Hnyine et al.
activities related to the energy consumption, of which time saved through cooking and collecting firewood are particularly notable.
Table 6 shows the emissions from the various products used that are expected to be influenced by biogas consumption and there indeed is a significant difference between users and non-users in CO2 emissions through reduced consumption of LPG .
<0.
and wood .
<0.
, which amounts up to an average of 185 kg CO2e emission reduction householdAe1 monthAe1.
In total, the forty digesters in Selo save 90 tonnes of CO2e yearAe1.
The economic benefits in terms of reduced workload, wood.
LPG and fertilizer consumption have thus been measured: biogas implementation reduced the former three significantly, in contrast to the latter variable.
Also, as a 13-year period for covering the purchasing costs seems relatively high, it is recommended to take more non-user samples in order to more accurately assess the financial benefits of biogas adoption.
Nevertheless, measures have to be taken in order to more effectively make use of the benefits digesters may engender to further decrease costs and CO2 emissions.
In Nepal, it was needed to create awareness among the users to improve utilization of the biogas slurry (Galli and Pulchok, 2.
, which is likely needed in the case of Selo as well, as observations in Selo pointed out that users still did not completely AobelieveAo in the effectiveness of the slurry.
Analogous to paragraph 5.
2, further research is needed to understand why chemical fertilizer consumption has not decreased among biogas users and to develop methods in tackling this Potential To estimate the potential effects of large-scale biogas adoption, found results can be further extrapolated linearly for the case when the entire regency of Boyolali adopts to biogas.
On a yearly basis, complete rural biogas adoption by farmers in Boyolali Regency (N=256,560 (Raharjo, 2.
) would save 5 TWh and 0.
57 megatonnes CO2e.
These emission reductions can be further used by selling it as carbon credit for a total of US $5.
million yearAe1, having assumed a price of US $10 tonneAe1CO2e (Pathak et al.
, 2.
As to be observed in China .
ee section .
, financial support from the governmental, project management and information dissemination to raise awareness may all greatly increase biogas usage in Boyolali.
Biogas implementation on a larger scale, across Indonesia in particular Java due to the prevalence of dairy farms there (Morey, 2.
is recommended in that it promotes sustainable energy consumption, increases self-sufficiency, enhances socio-economic status, improves health and sanitation, reduces GHG emissions and may act as a stepping stone into further national sustainable development.
As not only cow dung, but also other crop residues may be used as digester inputs, biogas adoption is not be limited to cow holders exclusively.
India numbers on livestock population in ASEAN countries indicate the possibility for rural biogas implementation there as well 70% in Asia live in rural areas (Ahuja, 2.
However promising, purchasing costs are for some farmers a clear obstacle in biogas Besides, lack of space next to the house also acted as a barrier in installing a digester.
Yet one household in Selo did have a digester directly beneath the cowshed installed, and thus effectively eliminated the problem regarding available space.
Furthermore, as cattle are also held in free range, manure collection and feeding can become problematic.
A weak industrial sector that facilitates the technologies may also be a constraint for the successful large-scale uptake of the biogas technology, whereas a lack of maintenance, repair and other services also form major limiting factors for biogas adoption.
Furthermore, as observed in Selo, biogas quality is prone to reduce in quality from improper digester management.
Nevertheless, as efforts can be made to increase digester plant effectiveness, the large potential of CO2 emission reductions should spur policy makers in supporting national Forum Geografi.
Vol 29 .
December 2015: 114-127 Benefits of Rural.
(Tazi Hnyine et al.
biogas development under the notions of environmental preservation, self-sufficiency and overall sustainable development.
Conclusions and recommendations This research has analysed several .
ocio-) economic and environmental benefits of rural biogas for households.
The use of rural biogas provides an economic benefit of around 20,000 IDR monthAe1 to a In addition, adoption also saves approximately 490 kWh monthAe1 and 185 kg CO2e monthAe1.
Fertilizer consumption patterns have not significantly improved from biogas adoption, although this may more so be ascribed to a lack of awareness than an actual lack of biogas slurry Biogas adoption lead to significant reductions in fossil energy consumption .
%) and overall workload has been reduced by nearly 30%.
As farmers put virtually no effort in either time or money for, for example, supplying the digester with water, mixing the input or maintenance, additional methods have to be taken up by farmers in order to increase the digesterAos overall effectiveness, in terms of both its impact on energy and chemical fertilizer Collective action amongst the villagers and training the women-folk to more effectively operate the digester could be a method to increase digester performance and so further reduces their workload, yet it is unknown whether the women are prepared to adapt.
Evaluating which methods would be most suitable to adapt to stands beyond the scope of this Despite the digesters not performing as well as anticipated, the biogas installations still induced significant GHG emission Moreover, when methods are found that will enhance household biogas quality, emission reductions are likely to increase as well, which should pursue policy makers and NGOs in expediting biogas development and awareness raising on larger scales: regency expansion (N=256,.
may save up to 5 TWh, 0.
57 megatonnes CO2e and US $5.
7 million from selling carbon credit per Involvement of governmental and non-governmental will be important to promote biogas implementation in rural areas in Indonesia.
This can be supported by issuance of policy by its related local governments, such as the agriculturaland energy department.
Further research is needed using higher sample sizes for specifically non-users to more adequately assess the impacts of biogas adoption on a householdAos financial situation and energy consumption.
More experiments must be performed on determining the biogas quality of household digesters, using more appropriate methods for determining the amount of biogas used in particular.
Also, fixed variables such as the efficiency of the stove must be known, as these may greatly influence the outcome of the calculations.
Only then, one can say with more certainty the digesters underperform considerably, from which naturally follows that firewood consumption remains necessary to meet the energy needs.
Finally, it is important to point out that this research can be extended to other rural areas in Indonesia to provide further information on how rural biogas adoptioncan bring benefit to other agricultural-based villages.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Ms.
Rianawati for facilitating the research at Resilience Development Initiative and Dr.
Joy Clancy and Dr.
Yudha Prambudia for their comments on this paper.
Mr.
Sartono and Mr.
Pramudiyanto for Forum Geografi.
Vol 29 .
December 2015: 114-127 Benefits of Rural.
(Tazi Hnyine et al.
their assistance during the field survey, and the farmers for their willingness and transparency in answering the survey questions.
Finally, gratitude is expressed to Mr.
Deni Nugraha and Ms.
Rintakasari Vitri for their assistance during the research preparation and data This paper benefits from a research grant entitled: AuEconomic Potential from Rural Energy Supply with Biogas from Community Owned LivestockAy provided by the Institute of Technology Bandung under 89.
10/I1.
C10/
KU/2015.
References