Integrated Renewable Energy Potential Assessment - IREPA - … · 2016-03-10 · o Simple...
Transcript of Integrated Renewable Energy Potential Assessment - IREPA - … · 2016-03-10 · o Simple...
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