Renewable Energy 103 (2017) 1e14

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Urban commercial biogas power plant model for Zambian towns

Agabu Shane a, b, Shabbir H. Gheewala a, b, *, Young Kafwembe c
a
The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkuts University of Technology Thonburi, 126 Prachauthit Road, Bangkok, 10140, Thailand
b
Centre of Excellence on Energy Technology and Environment, PERDO, Bangkok, Thailand
c
School of Business, Accounting and Finance Department, Copperbelt University, P.O. Box 21692, Kitwe, Zambia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The prospect of producing biogas from municipal solid waste (MSW) is high in urban towns of Zambia.
Received 1 April 2016 However, the feasibility of establishing biogas-based power plants needs to be assessed in relation to the
Received in revised form existing potentials, barriers and prospects. Technical potentials though available in urban towns, need to
7 October 2016
be modeled with a business view. The paper presents such an assessment of potential benets and
Accepted 8 November 2016
Available online 9 November 2016
suggests ways to overcome barriers such as nancing, regulatory framework, incentives and lack of
information and data. Once the barriers are overcome, biogas-based power plants could be established in
urban towns. These aspects are illustrated through a real case study of Kitwe town, which has the po-
Keywords:
Municipal solid waste
tential to install a 1.164 MW power plant. A simple payback period (PBP) calculation indicates that the
Biogas model power plant would have a 2 years payback period and the Net Present Values (NPV) at 18% interest base
Environmental, health, sanitation, social and rate would be 2,515,000 V and after performing a sensitivity analysis, the project becomes unviable at
economic benets 28% interest rate (
250 V). Other benets that would come as a result of a biogas-based power plant in
Urban towns Kitwe are: 2.308 Gg CO2eq y
1 avoided greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 1.235 Gg y
1 nitrogen would be
Zambia conserved and 920 t y
1 of organic fertilizer would be produced.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction methods has been hampered in many developing countries by

Biomass use as an energy source has been high and its impor-
tance has been on the increase in many countries. Though solid
biomass has been the major contributor to the energy mix of many
countries, biogas production has quickly been gaining ground
[1e3]. In the Sub-Saharan Africa (SAA) biomass contributes be-
tween 70 and 95% of energy needs. If well implemented, biomass
energy technologies have the potential to replace fossil fuels;
biogas can work very well as an alternative energy and the bio
slurry can be used to improve soil fertility in rural areas [4,5].
Compared to other biofuels 1 m3 of biogas at caloric value of
20 MJ m
3 at burning efciency of 34% can replace 3.78 kg of
rewood having a caloric value of 18 MJ kg
1 at burning efciency
10% or 10.30 kg of dung having a caloric value of 11 MJ kg
1
burning at 6% efciency or 1.65 kg charcoal having a caloric value
of 8 kWh kg
1 and burning at 25% efciency when cooking [6,7].
Utilization of modern, efcient and advanced biomass-to-energy
* Corresponding author. The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment,
King Mongkuts University of Technology Thonburi, 126 Prachauthit Road, Bangkok,
10140, Thailand.
E-mail address: shabbir_g@jgsee.kmutt.ac.th (S.H. Gheewala).
institutional, policy, technical, nancial, information and public
awareness barriers [8e10]. Biogas is one of the energy carriers
derived from biomass such as municipal solid waste (MSW), agri-
cultural and forest residues, livestock manure and sludge from
sewage treatment plants. It is a very versatile source of energy and
can be used for heating and electricity generation [11]. Biogas has
the potential to reduce a countrys high dependency on imported
fossil fuels, reduce energy poverty and achieve sustainable man-
agement of waste resulting from human activities [12]. Biogas can
be produced through anaerobic digestion of organic matter by
microorganisms in the absence of oxygen [13]. A consortium of
microorganisms that carries out anaerobic digestion depends on
the pH, temperature, Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT), C/N ratio etc.
The microbial processes that convert organic matter to methane
(CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) take place under psychrophilic
(<20  C), mesophilic (25e40  C) or thermophilic (50e65  C) con-
ditions, although biodegradation under mesophilic conditions is
the most common [14e16]. Biogas mainly consists of methane and
carbon dioxide with traces of hydrogen (H2), nitrogen (N2) and
hydrogen sulphide (H2S) [17,18]. The production process involves
hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis or dehydrogenation and
methanogenesis [19e24]. Typically, biogas has caloric values in

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.11.017
0960-1481/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 A. Shane et al. / Renewable Energy 103 (2017) 1e14

Abbreviation JCTR Jesuit Center for Theological Reection

k Kilo
AfDB African Development Bank kWh Kilowatt hour
AD Anaerobic Digestion MSW Municipal Solid Waste
BOZ Bank of Zambia MW Megawatt
CEC Copperbelt Energy Corporation MWh Megawatt hour
CH4 Methane JICA Japanese International Corporation Agency
CHP Combined Heat and Power N2 Nitrogen
CI Cash Inow N 2O Nitrous oxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide NPV Net Present Value
CSO Central Statistics Ofce PBP Payback Period
CSWMC Copperbelt Solid Waste Management Company PPP Public Private Partnership
CSTR Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor PV Present Value
EF Emission Factor PVF Present Value Factor
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment SAA Sub-Saharan Africa
EPB Environmental Project Brief SADC Southern Africa Development Community
FC Fuel Combustion SNV Stichting Nederlands Vrijwilligers
GgCO2eq Giga Carbon dioxide equivalent TMO Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization
GHG Greenhouse Gases VS Volatile Solids
HRT Hydraulic Retention Time WB World Bank
IFA International Fertilizer Industry Association WHO World Health Organization
IIC Initial Investment Cost ZDA Zambia Development Agency
IMF International Monetary Fund ZESCO Zambia Electricity Supply Company
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ZRA Zambia Revenue Authority

the range of 15e24 MJ/m3 [25e27], a methane to carbon dioxide
ratio of 60:40 [28], density of 0.67 kg/m3, average gross electricity
production of 2.07 kWh per m3 biogas (35% electrical efciency)
and an average heat production of 2.67 kWh (45% thermal ef-
ciency). The methods for waste anaerobic digestion depend on type
of digester, the working temperature and the number of stages. The
two most common are complete mix and the plug ow. The rst
one is typically used in a wet process having less than 10% dry
matter in the interior of the digester and less than 20% total solids.
Using a mixer, the feedstock is fed continuously making the
mixture homogeneous in all parts of the tank [29]. A continuous or
semi continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) allows for efcient
mixing and prevents solid accumulation thereby creating an
enabling environment for the microorganisms and the feedstock
substrate [30]. The CSTR is the most common mixing method
mostly employed in anaerobic reactors and it achieves constant
methane production when a steady state operation is established
[31]. Each anaerobic digester reactor is normally equipped with an
electric motor mixer held in place by a stainless steel stand [32].
Excessive use of biomass in a traditional manner to meet energy
needs has not only resulted into soil and environmental degrada-
tion but also resulted into indoor air pollution, release of green-
house gas (GHG) emissions and loss of opportunities to carry out
more productive activities [6,33]. The commonly known GHG
emissions released from traditional use of biomass are CH4 and
nitrogen oxide (N2O) from management of livestock manure and
combustion of crop residues, rewood, charcoal and livestock
manure in the quest for energy for cooking using inefcient stoves
[34e36]. Globally, nearly 2.5 billion people use traditional biomass
to meet energy needs for cooking. By 2012, Stichting Nederlands
Vrijwilligers or Netherlands Development Organization (SNV), a
non-governmental organization from the Netherlands, had
disseminated biogas technology into about 18.5 million households
in African countries like Rwanda, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Uganda,
Kenya, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Benin and Cameroon [28,37]. Despite
such progress in biogas dissemination in these SSA countries,
Zambia has lagged behind in this area [9]. Burning of biomass on
inefcient stoves causes loss of soil fertility, air pollution, and loss of
opportunity by those who collect the biomass [6]. Power produc-
tion using biogas in combined heat and power plants protects the
environment and avoids climate change, and can contribute
immensely towards a countrys energy mix [38]. Life cycle assess-
ment studies conducted in Europe and Asia indicated that use of
biomass as feedstock to produce power had lower GHG emissions
compared to use of fossil fuels [39]. Substitution of mineral fertil-
izer with organic fertilizer resulting from biomass degradation
through anaerobic digestion would substantially reduce environ-
mental impacts [40]. Most countries are promoting biogas due to its
many benets such as it is a clean source of energy, and it has the
ability to replace fossil fuels, reduce deforestation, improve soil
fertility, increase income, improve peoples living standards and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions [4,27and41].
The objective of this study was to come up with a power plant
model that would use biogas from municipal solid waste that is
generated in urban towns of Zambia. Biogas power plants would
supplement the electricity shortage that is currently mainly sup-
plied by hydroelectricity [42]. The study used the business model
canvas according to Osterwalder and Pigneur [43]. The study will
identify data gaps that have existed for a long time in this area in
Zambia and it will serve as a model that could be implemented in
all urban areas where municipal solid waste is generated in rela-
tively large amounts. The study is unique as it is the rst one of its
kind in Zambia. In the study, Kitwe town has been used as a real
case example to demonstrate how the model could work. The
model would be replicable and sustainable to all other urban towns
where such biogas potential from municipal solid waste exists. The
study involved establishing the biogas potential from MSW,
establishing the electrical and heat potential that could be gener-
ated by a combined heat and power (CHP) plant, determination and
or/discussing environmental, social, health and sanitation and
economic benets. The justications for using a business model
canvas and Kitwe as a real case example are that the business
model canvas is not only applicable to typical and common busi-
ness whose markets have been established but it is also applicable
 A. Shane et al. / Renewable Energy 103 (2017) 1e14
to unique business such as power generation from MSW and Kitwe
has almost the same social settings and built environment like most
urban towns in Zambia respectively. The untapped biogas potential
[9,10] can be used to partly overcome the energy challenges. Biogas
may not be sufcient to power mines but it can be able to power
residential homes and therefore help in solving the problem. For
this reason, there is a justication that MSW can be used to produce
biogas and consequently electricity in Zambia urban towns.
2. Methodology
2.1. Data and information acquisition
Information and data on human population and municipal solid
waste generation parameters were obtained from the Central Sta-
tistics Ofce (CSO) [44], ofcial reports from local authorities,
agencies, non-governmental organizations and publications from
the sub-Saharan countries like Zimbabwe, Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda,
Tanzania, Kenya and Cameroon. Information and data on invest-
ment costs of biogas power plants were obtained from European
and Asian countries where such technology exists. Depending on
the subject matter, each specic section has cited the information
and data source. The information and data used in this study were
acquired between the year 2007 and 2015.
Kitwe is located in the center of the Copperbelt Province be-
tween latitudes 12 and 13 South and longitudes 27 and 29 East
at an altitude of about 1300 m [45] with minimum temperatures of
about 10e22  C during the cold season and maximum of be-
tween 27 and 35  C during the hot season [46]. The city of Kitwe is
an economic center of the Copperbelt Province with large mining
operations, fast expanding informal sector comprising manufac-
turing, education, healthcare and trading.
2.2. Business model canvas
The business model canvas could be dened as a rationale on
how an organization creates, delivers and captures value [43]. The
model identies key partners, resources and activities, value
proposition, customer relationship, customer segments, channels
of how the value proposition would be sold to the customers, cost
structure and the revenue stream as indicated in Table 1. This study
has modied the business model canvas to include key benets
such as environmental, social, health and sanitation and economics.
These benets have either been quantied and or qualitatively
discussed.
2.3. Biogas potential from municipal solid waste
Zambia is divided into provinces and districts. Each district is
further divided into constituencies. Currently there are 150 con-
stituencies in Zambia. Each constituency is subdivided into wards.
These divisions are not only important for political administration
but also for provision of services to the locals. Kitwe has ve con-
stituencies namely; Kamnsa, Wusakile, Nkana, Chimwemwe and
Kwacha [47]. MSW management was poor in most local authorities
despite the laws and regulations being in place. Enforcement and
monitoring by the Zambia Environmental Management Agency
(ZEMA) is inadequate. A lot of people complained about environ-
mental degradation in the country and frequent outbreaks of
cholera, diarrhea and dysentery have been linked to improper
disposal of municipal solid waste [48]. A study by Senkwe and
Mwale [49] concluded that waste from residential areas and mar-
kets in Zambian towns were the most suitable for composting and
biodegradation as the organic content was relatively higher
compared to waste from other sources.
3
The MSW generated per day per ward is a product of the pop-
ulation per ward, waste generation per capita and the collection
rate. The biogas potential is the product of the MSW generated per
day per ward, organic matter content and the biogas potential of
per ton of MSW subtract the possible losses [10,50e54]. The power
generated from municipal waste was calculated using Equations (1)
and (2).
EMSW  hP
PMSW (1)
24  60  60
X
EMSW Ni  Qpc  Ceff  OMf  Bp  CVb (2)
where: PMSW is the electrical or thermal power generated from
municipal solid waste (MW), EMSW is the energy from municipal
solid waste (MJ d
1), hp is the electrical or thermal power efciency
of the conversion of biomethane into electrical or thermal power in
the biogas power plant (%), Ni is the ith ward total human popu-
lation, Qpc is the quantity of municipal solid waste generated per
capita (kg p
1 d
1), Ceff is the municipal solid waste collection ef-
ciency or rate of municipal solid waste collection (%), OMf is the
organic matter fraction in the municipal solid waste (%), Bp is the
biogas potential of the municipal solid waste (m3 kg
1) and CVb is
the caloric value of biogas (MJ m
3). The electrical and thermal are
estimated separately using their respective efciencies.
2.4. Organic fertilizer production
Improvement of the bio-slurry can add value to a biogas project
apart from the earnings realized from the sale of electricity and
heat. The bio-slurry could contribute to the nancial feasibility of
the biogas plant by substituting chemical fertilizers which are
costly and have adverse environmental impacts [55]. Organic fer-
tilizer as a co-product of biogas production can also lead into an
increase in fertilizer availability [56]. Organic fertilizer produced
from anaerobic digestion contains a high amount of nitrogen,
phosphates, and other nutrients, which can be utilized as a natural
fertilizer for agricultural use [57e59]. The digestate from anaerobic
digestion is rich in nutrients and can be spread directly into elds
[12] and crop yields increase by 6e30% [60,61]. Organic fertilizer
from anaerobic digestion does not only replace the use of chemical
fertilizers but also leads into increased crop production yields,
reduced soil degradation and it could lead to saving of hard earned
foreign exchange through reduced chemical fertilizer importations
[5,62e64]. The amount of organic fertilizer that would be produced
from the anaerobic digestion was estimated according to Equation
(3) adopted from Tonkunya and Wongwuttanasatian [65].
MCH4
Qf (3)
rCH4  RCH4  VB  DP
where; Qf is the production rate of fertilizer (kg d
1), MCH4 is the
mass of methane generated within a year (kg y
1), rCH4 is the
density of methane (kg m
3), RCH4 is the ratio of methane in the
biogas, VB is the biogas generated from a unit mass of fertilizer
(m3 kg
1 of fertilizer), Dp is the number of days of production per
year.
2.5. Greenhouse gas emissions
2.5.1. Greenhouse gas emissions from chemical fertilizer production
Fertilizer production currently accounts for about 2e3% of the
total global energy consumption. Nitrogen fertilizers are respon-
sible for the majority of this consumption. Of the global greenhouse
gas emissions, 0.93% is from fertilizer production, 0.07% from
4 A. Shane et al. / Renewable Energy 103 (2017) 1e14

Table 1
The business model canvas.

Key partners Key Activities Value Proposition Customer Relationship Customer Segment
 Copperbelt Solid Waste  Conduct an Environmental  Electric power supply  Personal assistance  Zambia Electricity
Management Impact  Thermal power supply  Dedicated personal Supply Corporation
Company (CSWMC) Assessment (EIA)  Organic fertilizer supply assistance  Kitwe farmers
 Zambia Electricity Supply  Construct Anaerobic  Self service  Factories
Corporation (ZESCO) Digester (AD) reactors  Community
 Copperbelt Energy  Install biogas upgrading unit involvement
Corporation (CEC)  Install biogas storage unit
 Local Authorities  Install CHP unit
 Local communities  Produce biogas
 Produce electricity and
thermal heat
 Produce organic fertilizer
Key Resources Channels
 Municipal Solid Waste Purchase agreement
 Water In house sales
 Land Retailers
 Human Wholesalers
 Financial Web based
 Intellectual property Media (TV, radio and
newspaper)

Cost Structure: Cost driven Revenue Stream

Fixed costs  Electricity purchase agreement with ZESCO
 Capital costs (construction of AD reactors, electricity generators, land acquisition,  Sale of biogas to gas stations
accessory machinery, etc.)  Sale of biogas to Kitwe residents
 Car rentals  Sale of organic fertilizer to Kitwe farmers
 Salaries
Variable costs
 Buying MSW
 Electricity
 Water
 Transportation
 Advertising
 Packaging of organic fertilizer

Key benets
Environmental Social Health and sanitation Economic
 Greenhouse gas emissions  Employment  Typhoid  Earnings from electricity sales
Charcoal use  Opportunity cost  Cholera  Earnings from biogas sales
Firewood use  Poverty reduction  Diarrhea  Earnings from organic fertilizer sales
Fertilizer application  Development  Pets  Savings from traditional use of biomass
MSW burning  Household earnings  Bad odors
 Nitrogen conservation  Indoor air pollution
 Reduced deforestation

fertilizer distribution and 1.5% from fertilizer use [66]. In chemical greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of fertilizer type i
fertilizer production greenhouse gas emissions are released from (kg CO2eq kg
1 N-fertilizer). The values of GHG emissions per kg of
ammonia, phosphoric acid and nitric acid production processes. All N-fertilizer produced are given in Table 2.
nitrogen fertilizers are derived from ammonia. Natural gas is the
main feedstock used to obtain the hydrogen needed to synthesize
ammonia and the energy required for this process is obtained from 2.5.2. Greenhouse gas emissions from chemical and organic
fossil fuel or coal. Coal can also be used as a feedstock to obtain the fertilizer application
nitrogen required for ammonia production. Nitric acid (HNO3) is GHG emissions from organic and chemical fertilizer application
required as an intermediate in the production of nitrate fertilizers to managed soils was estimated according the 2006 Intergovern-
(and several other industrial chemicals) [67]. The GHG emissions mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National
from fertilizer production were estimated according to Bellarby Greenhouse Gas Inventories, tier 1 [35] as given by Equations (5)
et al. [68], the International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA) and (6). The avoided greenhouse gas emissions are estimated by
[69] Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization (TMO) subtracting the GHG emissions of organic fertilizers application
[70] and Kool et al. [71]. The amount of GHG emission per kg of N- from the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from chemical fertil-
fertilizer produced is multiplied with the percentage of nitrogen in izer application.
the fertilizer and the quantity of fertilizer produced (kg y
1) ac-
44
cording to Equation (4). N2 ODE N   EF1  10
6 (5)
28
X
n
GHGFP Qi  PN;i  EFi  10
6 (4) 44
N2 OIE NFVola  EF4 Fleach  F5   10
6 (6)
i1 28

where: GHGFP greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer produc- where: N2ODE Direct N2O emissions from synthetic nitrogen
tion (Gg CO2eq y
1), Qi quantitate of fertilizer type i (kg y
1), addition to the managed soils (Gg N2O yr
1), N Consumption in
Percentage of nitrogen in fertlizer type i (%) and EFi is the nutrients of nitrogen fertilizers (kg N input yr
1), EF1 Emission
 A. Shane et al. / Renewable Energy 103 (2017) 1e14
Table 2
Greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer production.
Fertilizer type
GHG Emissions (kg CO2eq kg
1 fertilizer nutrient produced)
factor for N2O emissions from N inputs (kg N2OeN/kg N input),
N2OIE Indirect N2O emissions produced from atmospheric
deposition of N, volatilized from managed soils (Gg N2OeN yr
1),
Fvola Fraction of applied synthetic N fertilizer materials that vol-
atilizes as NH3 and NOx (kg N volatilized/kg of N applied),
EF4 Emission factor for N2O emissions from atmospheric depo-
sition of N on soils and water surfaces, kg NeN2O/kg NH3-N NOx-N
volatilized, Fleach Fraction of applied synthetic N fertilizer mate-
rials that leaches as NH3 and NOX (kg N leached/kg of N additions)
and EF5 Emission factor for N2O emissions from N leaching and
runoff (kg N2OeN/kg N).
2.5.3. GHG emissions from municipal solid waste, charcoal and
rewood
Central Statistics Ofce [44] estimated that 51% of urban
households used charcoal, 43% used hydroelectricity and 6% on
average used rewood in urban towns of Zambia. In rural areas 81%,
16% and 3% of the households used rewood, charcoal and hydro-
electricity respectively. Each household that uses charcoal needs
two fty kilograms bags of charcoal per month [73] and 12.5 kg of
rewood per day [44,64e75]. The use of rewood and charcoal
produces high levels of smoke and particulate matter which are
hazardous to human health. The collection of the rewood, wood
required for charcoal burning and cooking on inefcient stoves is
normally done by women and children. This does not only expose
them to unhealthy conditions but also robs them of opportunities
to be involved in other income generating activities [76e78]. The
2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, tier 1
under stationary energy sources was used to calculate CH4 and N2O
emissions from rewood and charcoal. Though energy from the
burning of MSW is not recovered and used, MSW emissions are
estimated in the same way as those from rewood and charcoal.
This is so because the collected MSW is burnt in dump sites and in
places where it is illegally dumped. Only about 40% of the MSW is
collected [79]. The method uses data on energy consumption sta-
tistics and default emission factors according to Equation (7)
adopted from the IPCC [35] and Niu et al. [34].
EGHG;F FCF  EFGHG;F
where: EGHG,F are emissions of a given GHG by type of fuel (kg GHG),
FCF is the amount of fuel combusted (TJ) and EFGHG,F is the default
emission factor of a given GHG by type of fuel (kg gas/TJ).
2.6. Health and sanitation benets
The health and sanitation benets were studied by analysis of
ofcial reports and publications from Zambia and other countries
on health and sanitation issues resulting from municipal solid
waste management. These reports and publications have cited
problems associated with MSW treatment and disposal and how
these problems can be reduced by the production of biogas using
MSW. Biogas production helps to better surrounding environment
as a result of the MSW being biodegraded in a controlled envi-
ronment. Naturally decomposition of waste causes odor and water
pollution issues. The controlled process of anaerobic digestion re-
duces odor and liquid waste disposal problems [80]. According to
5
N P K Source
3.30 1.10 0.73 [68,69,72]
3.30 1.57 0.50 [70]
3.63 1.55 0.97 [71]
Nayono [81] during anaerobic digestion, methane is captured and
used to produce energy, bad odors are captured and restricted to
the digester, waste water from solid waste and human waste is
digested under anaerobic conditions and any other emission that
was supposed to go in the environment is restricted to the digester.
Eutrophication is prevented and the by-product the bio-slurry
could be used as an organic fertilizer which has more advantages.
The traditional use of charcoal and rewood for cooking using
inefcient stoves have also been discussed according to data and
information from other studies conducted in Gambia, Zimbabwe,
Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Ethiopia, India, China, Mexico and Nepal
[82e85].
2.7. Nitrogen conservation
According to a study by Anderson [86], there is low nitrogen
content in the sub-Saharan Africa soils and as such its conservation
is vital. Due to soil degradation and high costs associated with
chemical fertilizer production and application, conservation of ni-
trogen in the soils is relatively better than application of chemical
fertilizer [87]. Nitrogen fertilizer production and application
consume a lot of energy and may lead to severe environmental
impacts such as global warming, acidication and eutrophication
[88,89]. Nitrogen is a major nutrient needed by crops. When
biomass residues are not recycled back into the soil, not only is
nitrogen lost but also soil erosion is intensied [90]. The benet of
nitrogen conservation as a result of biogas production is estimated
as given in Equation (8) by Feng et al. [15]. The MSW generated has
not been used to estimate nitrogen conservation. Only the charcoal
and rewood replaced by biogas used have been used to estimate
nitrogen conserved. This is so because the MSW would not be
available to be ploughed into the soil, while saving of the cutting of
trees for charcoal and rewood entails conservation of the nitrogen
in the soil.
X
n
Nc Qi  li (8)
i1
(7)
where; Nc is nitrogen conservation when traditional bioenergy
replaced by biogas (t), Qi is the amount of traditional bioenergy
type i and li is the nitrogen ratio of traditional bioenergy type i.
2.8. Economic benets
The economic benet of the biogas power plant model was
estimated using the net present value (NPV) and the simple
payback period (PBP). The NPV is an indicator for protability of an
investment project. The NPV calculation converts expected future
cash ows of a project into their present values. For this reason NPV
is the sum of all the present values of a projects cash ows. If the
project NPV is greater than zero, the project is considered to be
protable over that time period and the opposite is the true for an
NPV less than zero [91e95]. The higher the Net Present Value of a
proposed project, the higher the protability [96]. Apart from the
NPV, the PBP was also computed according to Wresta et al. [97]. The
actual economics of a facility is usually expressed as a payback
6 A. Shane et al. / Renewable Energy 103 (2017) 1e14
period. The payback period is dened as the time at which the NPV
becomes zero [98,99]. Equations (8)e(11) were used to estimate the
Net Present Values and the simple payback period. Social economic
benets such as jobs created, household income, poverty reduction
and rural and urban development have not been quantied but
have been qualitatively discussed. This is so as there was insuf-
cient data for quantitative analysis, however it is a well-known fact
that with such a biogas power plant jobs will be created, there
would be poverty reduction, households will earn incomes and
there will be rural and urban development.
NPVn PV1 PV2 PVn
IIC (9)
PVn FVn  PVFn;i (10)
1 ticle size, mixing with water and inoculation with the bacteria
PVFn;i (11)
1 in
IIC
PBP (12)
CI
where: NPVn is the net present value of a project over n years, PV1
through PVn project cash ows from each project year1 through
n, IIC is the initial investment cost, FVn the known Future Value of
the project cash ow in year n, PVFni a Present Value Factor for the
year (n) and the project discount rate (i), PBP is the payback period
in years and CI is the cash inow.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Biogas potential from municipal solid waste in Kitwe
The waste generation per capita was taken to be 0.5 kg per
person per day and the waste collection rate was at 40% [79]. The
waste generation per capita compares very well to other cities in
the Sub-Saharan Africa whose waste generation per capita ranges
from 0.40 to 0.70 kg per person per day [50e55]. The lower waste
collection rates in Kitwe are as a result of the dumping of the waste
in undesignated areas such illegal pits, piles, road sides and even
drainage systems [100] and perceived cheapness of dumping in
such areas [10]. This is relatively much lower compared to other
towns elsewhere. Zimbabwes town collection rates can be as high
as 90% [53]. The organic waste content of the MSW was at 40%
[10,79]. This compares very well with other town in Zimbabwe at
45% [45] and MSW from other parts of the world at 40% [101]. To
initiate the process of anaerobic digestion of the municipal solid
waste, activated sludge and wastewater collected from a waste
water treatment plant could be used as an inoculant and added to
the MSW in the reactors [89].
The human population was obtained from the Central Statistics
Ofce [44] and the municipal solid waste biogas potential of
128 m3 t
1 and 6% losses of biogas during anaerobic digestion were
used [50,102]. This value is from similar studies in Zimbabwe. In
Zambia, no such studies have been conducted before to determine
this value. Other studies elsewhere indicate an average methane
yield of 120e150 m3 t
1 of MSW, with 2500 MJt
1 and 55%
methane content [103]. In terms of volatile solids, Khalid et al. [104]
in their study estimated methane yields from MSW of
0.36e0.53 m3 per kg Volatile Solids (VS) while Kemausour et al.
[105] estimated biogas potential 0.32 m3 of CH4 per kg TS of MSW.
The composition of methane in the biogas has been taken to be
between 50 and 70% [106,107] and caloric value of the biogas as
23 MJ/m3 [108]. Emissions from the MSW are estimated according
to the IPCC [67] Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Equation (7) also used to estimate emissions from charcoal and
rewood. Using Equations (1) and (2) and taking the electric and
thermal efciencies to be 42% and 45% respectively
[13,94,109e112], the electric power would be 0.562 MW
(4923 MWh) and the thermal power 0.602 MW (5274 MWh). The
business model canvas for this project identies the supply of
4,923,000 kWhel and 5,274,000 kWhtherm per annum as some of the
value propositions of the project. The composition of MSW for
Kitwe District is indicated in Table 3 and the estimations for biogas
daily potentials are shown in Table 4.
The MSWs physical and chemical composition in Kitwe Town is
presented in Table 3. The model considered physical pre-treatment
of the MSW. Once the MSW is collected, it would require sorting out
the non-organic component mechanically. Pre-treatment would
also involve reduction of the MSW into the required smaller par-
consortium. A careful review of the parameters indicates that they
are within the requirements for anaerobic digestion to proceed
successfully [21,49and113].
3.2. Organic fertilizer production
Using Equation (3), the amount of organic fertilizer produced
per year was estimated to be almost 920 tonnes. The earnings from
organic fertilizer sales were calculated by multiplying the quantity
of organic fertilizer that would be produced with the average
selling price of D-Compound and Urea fertilizers minus processing
costs incurred during the fertilizer processing. The cost of a 50 kg
bag of Nitrogen Phosphorous Potassium (NPK) and or/urea fertilizer
in Zambia ranges between 35 and 42 V [114]. This translates to
about 0.70e0.84 Vkg
1 of D-compound or Urea fertilizer. This cost
was used as a proxy for the cost of organic fertilizer that would
replace the chemical fertilizers. The processing costs were esti-
mated at 50% of the gross earnings from organic fertilizer sales
[115]. These included costs associated with labor, packaging, quality
assurance, marketing, storage, sales agents commissions and dis-
tribution. The net earnings from organic fertilizer sales would total
381,000 Vy
1. In the modied business model canvas, organic
fertilizer production is one of the valuable propositions of the
project and the farmers on the outskirts of Kitwe have been iden-
tied as the would-be main customers of this organic fertilizer.
3.3. Charcoal and rewood consumed for cooking energy
The modied business model canvas identies the replacement
of traditional-used biomass due to of biogas production as a saving.
Charcoal and rewood are the main biomass types consumed in a
traditional manner for cooking in Zambia. Charcoal and rewood
consumption in Zambian urban towns stands at 51% and 6% on
average of the total households respectively [44]. Taking 1 m3 of
biogas to replace 1.65 and 3.78 kg of charcoal and rewood, 1544
and 416 tonnes of charcoal and rewood could be replaced in Kitwe
town respectively. The efciencies and caloric values of biogas,
charcoal and rewood have been assumed as 34%, 25% and 10% and
23 MJ m
3, 27.6 MJ kg
1 and 18 MJ kg
1 when cooking [6,7,116].
Firewood in urban areas of Zambia costs V11.71 per Oxcart load
[75] and each load is a quarter tonne (250 kg). This translates into
V0.05 per kg of rewood. Charcoal costs range from V4.60 to V6.44
per 50 kg bag depending on whether one is in a rural or urban area
[73]. This translates into V0.09e0.13 per kg of charcoal. The price of
charcoal has been pegged at V0.13 per kg since the biogas power
plant is an urban model. The savings as a result of biogas replacing
use of charcoal and rewood would be 199,000 and 19,000 Vy
1
respectively. The charcoal and rewood are not produced by urban
households, but by rural households. For this reason rural
 A. Shane et al. / Renewable Energy 103 (2017) 1e14 7

Table 3
Composition of the municipal solid waste.

Classication of source Moisture content (%) Density (kg/m3) VS (%) Ash (%) Energy dry basis (MJ/kg) Energy ash-free dry basis (MJ/kg) C/N ratio

Town Center High Cost 79.03 260.0 80.4 19.56 25.96 49.62
Residential High Cost 51.23 116.3 92.4 5.84 15.02 17.06 8e19
Medium Cost 60.46 219.8 87.0 9.76 15.30 20.31
Low Cost 29.03 188.6 45.4 2.56 15.58 16.16
Peri - Urban 61.54 118.9 77.4 11.23 18.80 25.41

Table 4
Biogas potential for Kitwe Town.

Ward Population MSW generated (kg d
1) Biogas potential (m3 d
1) Biogas potential (MJ d
1)

Itimpi 11,503 920.24 110.72 2546.64

Twatasha 23,838 1907.04 229.46 5277.47
Kawama 37,613 3009.04 362.05 8327.10
Buntungwa 17,172 1373.76 165.29 3801.69
Lubuto 11,938 955.04 114.91 2642.94
Chimwemwe 14,074 1125.92 135.47 3115.83
Bupe 16,997 1359.76 163.61 3762.95
Ndeke 49,029 3922.32 471.93 10,854.47
Kafue 6961 556.88 67.00 1541.09
Kamnsa 13,774 1101.92 132.58 3049.41
Kwacha 18,222 1457.76 175.40 4034.15
Bulangililo 27,630 2210.40 265.96 6116.97
Ipusukilo 43,037 3442.96 414.26 9527.91
Chantente 2987 238.96 28.75 661.29
Riverside 35,564 2845.12 342.32 7873.47
Lubwa 12,556 1004.48 120.86 2779.76
Rokana 11,585 926.80 111.51 2564.79
Parlands 7394 591.52 71.17 1636.95
Buchi 22,975 1838.00 221.15 5086.41
Mukuba 5742 459.36 55.27 1271.21
Miseshi 17,141 1371.28 164.99 3794.83
Mindolo 15,257 1220.56 146.86 3377.73
Kamakonde 3842 307.36 36.98 850.58
Limaposa 2151 172.08 20.70 476.21
Luangwa 30,065 2405.20 289.39 6656.05
Chamboli 21,845 1747.60 210.27 4836.24
Chibole 16,524 1321.92 159.05 3658.23
Wusakile 24,676 1974.08 237.52 5462.99
Total 522,092 41,767.36 5025.45 115,585.32

households would indirectly benet to some extent. Initially, they would be 460 tonnes each. The values for the GHG emissions per kg
would lose incomes from charcoal and rewood sales to urban of N-fertilizer produced were given in Table 2. The results are as
areas but eventually, they would have more time to spend in more presented in Table 5.
productive activities instead of cutting and collecting rewood and Using Equations (5) and (6) adopted from the IPCC [35] guide-
burning charcoal. The opportunity cost of spending time to collect lines for national greenhouse gas inventories and taking nitrogen
rewood and cooking on inefcient stoves in rural areas was esti- content to be 10%, 46% and 10% in D-compound, urea and organic
mated to be 1.56 Vd
1 per rural household per day according to fertilizer respectively, the avoided greenhouse gas emissions from
Shane and Gheewala [117]. The reduction in the cutting of trees in fertilizer application were estimated as indicated in Table 6.
rural areas would result into reduced deforestation and conse- Municipal Solid Waste digestate has a nitrogen content of about
quently a reduction of all impacts associated with deforestation. 10e15% on average [118,119] and this was used in the estimation of
GHG emissions from organic fertilizer. The net CO2eq was esti-
mated as 0.89 GgCO2eqy
1. The large part of this would come from
3.4. Greenhouse gas emissions greenhouse gas emissions from urea chemical fertilizer as it has the
highest percentage of nitrogen.
The greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer production were Equation (7) adopted from the IPCC [35] guidelines for national
estimated according to Equation (4). The D-compound to Urea use is greenhouse gas inventories on energy use was used to calculate
one to one per hectare for maize which is the major crop grown in greenhouse gas emissions from charcoal, rewood and municipal
Zambia. For this reason, Urea and D-Compound fertilizer produced solid waste. Charcoal and rewood are used to provide energy for
cooking [44], while the municipal solid waste in most towns is
burned in dump sites and or other places where it is illegally
Table 5
Greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer production.
dumped [49,79,96,120]. For this reason, the same method for
charcoal and rewood has used though the energy in MSW is all
Fertilizer type Quantity CO2eq (kg y
1) CO2eq (Gg y
1) lost. The total emissions per year have been presented in Table 7.
Urea 459,667 697,775 0.698 MSW contributes more than half of the total GHG emissions
D-Compound 459,667 151,690 0.152 compared to charcoal and rewood. This is so because the amount
849,465 0.849
of MSW generated and burnt per year in dump sites and other
8 A. Shane et al. / Renewable Energy 103 (2017) 1e14

Table 6
Avoided greenhouse gas emissions from chemical fertilizer application.

Quantity (kg y
1) Direct N2O (kg y
1) Indirect N2O (kg y
1) CO2eq (Gg y
1)

Chemical fertilizer (D-Compound) 459,667 722 78 0.25

Chemical fertilizer (Urea) 459,667 3323 357 1.14
Organic fertilizer 919,334 1445 155 0.50
Total 2.600 280 0.89

Table 7
Greenhouse gas emissions from Charcoal, Firewood and MSW.

Biomass type Quantity (kg y
1) Energy (TJ y
1) EF (kg CH4TJ
1) EF (kg N2OTJ
1) CH4 (kg y
1) N2O (kg y
1) CO2eq (Gg y
1)

Charcoal 1,543,723 42.61 200 1 8521.35 42.61 0.192

Firewood 416,062 7.49 300 4 2246.74 29.96 0.056
MSW 15,245,086 42.19 300 4 12656.59 168.75 0.318
Total 23,424.68 241.32 0.567

illegal dumping sites is relatively much higher.
Use of municipal solid waste to produce biogas for power gen-
eration could result into avoided greenhouse gas emissions. A total
of 2.308 GgCO2eq per annum could be avoided from charcoal and
rewood consumption for cooking, burning of municipal solid
waste in dump sites and illegal dumping places, production
chemical fertilizer and application of chemical fertilizer to soils.
Chemical fertilizer application to soils contributes about a net of
0.893 GgCO2eq per annum accounting for 39%, followed chemical
fertilizer production at about 0.849 GgCO2eq representing a 37%
contribution, followed by open air burning of municipal solid waste
at about 0.318 GgCO2eq amounting to 14% of the total. Charcoal and
rewood contribute the least at 8% and 2% respectively. The
quantities and percent contributions of avoided greenhouse gas
emissions from charcoal, rewood, municipal solid waste and
chemical fertilizers are shown in Fig. 1. The net avoided greenhouse
gas emissions from fertilizer application to soils are the sum of
greenhouse gas emissions from D-compound and urea fertilizer
minus greenhouse gas emissions from the application of organic
fertilizer.
3.5. Health and sanitation
Millions of tonnes of municipal solid waste are generated every
year worldwide [121]. In less developed countries this waste is
Chemical Firewood;
Fertilizer Charcoal;
0.056; 2%
application; 0.192; 8%
Municipal
0.893; 39%
Solid Waste;
0.318; 14%
Chemical
fertilizer
production;
0.849; 37%
Fig. 1. Avoided greenhouse gas emissions (Gg CO2eq y
1).
improperly treated and disposed due to lack of nancial support
and technical knowhow. The improper treatment and disposal
leads to several problems such as such as odor nuisance, turbid
water, skin infection, diarrhea, breeding of pathogenic vectors,
damage to surface or ground water, eutrophication, soil contami-
nation and air pollution [81,122].
Inadequate municipal solid waste management in Kitwe and
most Zambian towns has resulted in the accumulation of waste on
open lands, in drains and in the living areas of many people, causing
a nuisance and stinking pools, environmental pollution through
leachates from piles and burning of waste, clogging of drains, and
the possible spread of diseases. Unattended piles of waste are a
breeding place for insects and rats [97,123]. Proper management of
MSW can prevent environmental damage [124].
The highly populated residential areas and unplanned settle-
ments have huge problems of solid waste disposal and sewerage
management. Local authorities rarely collect garbage in these areas.
During the rainy season cholera outbreaks are a norm as a result of
huge piles that has remained uncollected over a long period of time.
According to Senkwe et al. [100] most of the municipal solid waste
generated in Kitwe and most urban towns of Zambia is either burnt
or scattered around the town in illegal pits, piles, road sides and
even drainage systems and the situation has contributed to envi-
ronmental degradation, poor public health conditions, high risks of
epidemics and a generally aesthetically unpleasant environment.
Inadequate management of MSW and poor sanitation results into
health risks such as diarrhea, malaria, respiratory infections,
pneumonia and intestinal worms in Zambia [124]. This scenario is
not only prevalent in Kitwe, but most urban towns in Zambia.
Degradation of solid waste and breakages of sewer lines has
resulted into growing of grass and water ponds providing a habitat
for mosquitoes and other germs that causes many diseases. Market
places generate a lot of municipal solid waste which goes uncol-
lected for some time. Almost all wards and all sections have at least
one big market. The same problems faced in residential areas are
also faced at markets in terms of municipal solid waste disposal.
Use of this municipal solid waste and sewage could eliminate these
problems associated with solid waste disposal and sewage man-
agement environmentally as compared to chemical fertilizer [117].
Studies conducted in the SSA countries like Tanzania, Kenya,
Malawi, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Gambia and Ethiopia have indi-
cated that the indoor 24-h exposure to particulate matter of PM10
and PM2.5 are usually much higher than the WHO guidelines for
indoor air quality at 50 mg m
3 and 25 mg m
3 respectively. These
values can be as high as 100e2500 mg m
3 [125e128]. The use of
biomass for daily energy needs using inefcient stoves has resulted
in such indoor air pollution. In the SSA and indeed in Zambia,
 A. Shane et al. / Renewable Energy 103 (2017) 1e14
biomass use for daily cooking needs using inefcient stoves stands
at 70e95% [9,10]. In Zambian towns, the 51% and 6% of the total
households that use charcoal and rewood respectively [44] use
inefcient stoves and it is likely that these households would get
exposed to similar levels of particulate matter which are above
world health organization (WHO) guidelines. Studies from other
developing countries like China, India, Nepal and Mexico, have
shown similar results [129e132].
3.6. Nitrogen conservation
Nitrogen conservation in the soil was estimated using Equation
(8). The quantities of charcoal and rewood used were those that
would be replaced with biogas and the nitrogen ratio in both
charcoal and rewood was taken as 0.63 [15,133,134]. Municipal
solid waste was not included in the calculation because it would not
contribute towards nitrogen conservation in the soils. Normally the
MSW is disposed of in the dump sites located in towns and with
biogas production it would be used to produce biogas as such
cannot be recycled back into soils. A total of 1.235 Ggy
1 of nitrogen
would be conserved from avoided cutting of trees used for rewood
and charcoal boring. Charcoal contributes almost 80% of this
conserved nitrogen. This is so because charcoal consumption is
almost four times higher than rewood in towns. The avoided ni-
trogen losses are indicated in Table 8.
3.7. Economic benets
3.7.1. Important parameters used in the economic analysis
The cash ow analysis started with the estimation of the initial
investment cost associated with construction of the biogas anaer-
obic digesters, installation of the combined heat power plant,
biogas upgrading unit, biogas storage unit, environmental impact
assessment, planning and authorization, operational and mainte-
nance, insurance, depreciation and tax.
The lifespan of the plant is assumed to be between 20 and 25
years [93,94,110,115] Table 5 gives different parameters and their
associated costs in a biogas plant installation. The costs for CHP
unit, Anaerobic Digester and biogas upgrading unit have been
adopted from the Budzianowski & Budzianowska [95] study. These
costs are similar or almost the same as those given by other studies
by the European Biomass Association [13] and the International
Energy Agency [109,135]. Other costs for the biogas storage
equipment, planning and authorization, operation and mainte-
nance, and depreciation were obtained from other studies con-
ducted in European and Asian countries where such technology is
readily available and currently being used like Germany, Italy,
Poland, Kenya and China. There is currently no such biogas pro-
duction technology and equipment in Zambia and most of its
neighboring countries as such; this technology and or equipment
will be imported from Europe and or Asia where such technology is
readily available. These costs are relatively reasonable compared to
costs of the same equipment in other countries.
Costs associated with conducting the Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA), commercial insurance, tax and prevailing
Table 8
Avoided nitrogen losses.
Quantity Avoided nitrogen losses
kg y
1
kg y
1 Gg y
1
Charcoal 1,543,723 972,546 0.973
Firewood 416,062 262,119 0.262
Total 1,959,786 1,234,665 1.235
9
interest rates were obtained from within Zambia from the Envi-
ronmental Management Agency (ZEMA), Zambia Revenue Au-
thority (ZRA), and the Japanese International Development Agency
(JICA) in Zambia, the Bank of Zambia (BOZ), Zambia Development
Agency (ZDA), commercial banks and international nancial
consulting companies. These costs are given in Table 6 with their
respective references cited. A proposed project for electricity gen-
eration requires that an EIA is done according to the Environmental
Management Act of 2011, read together with the Environmental
Impact Assessment Regulations of 1997 and Statutory Instrument
No. 41 of 2015. The power generation of about 1 MW from biogas
would require an EIA called an Environmental Project Brief (EPB).
The cost of such an EPB would be about 2.37 V per unit fee and the
total cost would be 1000 V. The Environmental Project Brief should
briey give details of the investor, amount of investment, the
project description, identify potential impacts, suggest mitigation
measures to such impacts, resettlement action plan where appli-
cable and give a decommission plan that consists of costs and years
required for the whole plant decommissioning.
The construction of the power plant will also have positive so-
cial impacts on urban and rural households. Installation of the CHP
unit, anaerobic digesters, biogas upgrading and storage units and
production of organic fertilizer will create direct and indirect jobs.
Rural households will reduce tree cutting for rewood and charcoal
burning. Even though initially there would be loss of income for the
rural households involved in these activities, the households will
benet in the long run as they will be able to engage in more
productive activities. Deforestation will be reduced as a result of the
reduction in tree cutting. Income from direct and indirect jobs will
improve living standards for households and create a ripple effect
on the economy of the city and the country as a whole. Households
would no longer spend a lot of time using inefcient stoves that use
traditional biomass for energy needs.
The base interest rates were about 17e23% [136,137] though in
some commercial banks, interest could be as high as 28% [138].
Benets from avoided use of charcoal and rewood are estimated
according to how much charcoal and rewood be replaced by the
use of electricity generated from biogas. The cost of rewood is
from Chiwama et al. [80] and the cost of charcoal from CSO [44] and
Jesuit Center for Theological Reection (JCTR) [73].
The operation and maintenance (2%), and the processing costs
(50%) cover labor, maintenance and repairs, transportation, sorting
and storage of the MSW and processing, packaging, advertising and
storage of the organic fertilizers. Costs associated with the disposal
of the excess bio-slurry are also part of the 50% processing costs.
Electricity tariffs have been the lowest in Zambia compared to
other Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) region
countries. By 2008, domestic tariffs were as low as
0.01e0.03 VkWh
1, while commercial were about 0.03e0.04
VkWh
1 ( [139,140]. By 2010, the domestic tariffs had increased to
about 0.05e0.06 VkWh
1 [75]. The domestic tariffs were later
increased in 2013 to 0.06e0.07 VkWh
1. The commercial tariffs
were adjusted to about 0.05e0.08 VkWh
1 [141]. In Kenya the feed
in tariffs for power from biogas power plants are about
0.09e0.10 VkWh
1 [142]. Taking the tariff of electricity to be
0.08 VkWh
1 and thermal heat to be 0.05 VkWh
1 [141,143], the
earnings from electricity and thermal heat production were esti-
mated. The total earnings from sale of electric power and thermal
heat would amount to 394,000 and 264,000 Vy
1 respectively.
In order to add more value to the bio-slurry, it should be well
processed to a nished product; well dried, granulated, packaged,
branded and labeled. Benets of this organic fertilizer must be
inculcated into the farmers by conducting workshops and dem-
onstrations. Advertisements should be placed on both electronic
and print media as regards to the benets and access to this organic
10 A. Shane et al. / Renewable Energy 103 (2017) 1e14

Table 9
Important parameters of the biogas power plant model.

Unit Unit cost Source Quantity Total cost (V)

CHP unit VMW
1el 600,000 [94] 0.562 MW 337,000

Anaerobic digester Vm
3 100 [94] 5025 m3 503,000
Biogas upgrading unit VMW
1f 230,000 [109,135] 1.164 MW 268,000
Biogas storage VMW
1f 13,250 [110] 1.164 MW 16,000
EIA V/Unit 2.37 [144e146] 433 Units 1000
Planning and authorization % 5 [111] 56,000
Initial Investment Costs 1,180,000

Operational and maintenance % 2 [142] 23,000

Commercial insurance % 5 [147] 56,000
Depreciation % 5.5 [148] 62,000
Operating expenses 141,000

Savings: Charcoal use This study 199,000

Savings: Firewood use This study 19,000
Net income: Organic fertilizer sales This study 381,000
Earnings: Electric power sales VkWh
1 0.08 [141] 4,923,120 kWh 394,000
Earnings: Thermal heat sales VkWh
1 0.05 [143] 5,273,520 kWh 264,000
Total earnings 1,257,000

Corporate tax % 35 [147,149e151] 440,000

Net prot/loss V 504,000

fertilizer. Important parameters used in the economic analysis are
given in Table 9.
3.7.2. Net present value
The initial investment cost was estimated at 1,180,000 V. This
consisted of the cost of the CHP unit, anaerobic digesters, a biogas
upgrading and storage unit. It also had a component of one-off costs
such as the cost of conducting an environmental impact assessment
and planning and authorization associated with the project. The
annual recurring costs amounted to 141,000 V and consisted of
costs such as operation and maintenance, insurance and depreci-
ation. The total earning from electricity and thermal power sales,
organic fertilizer sales and savings from charcoal and rewood use
amounted to 1,257, 000 Vy
1. The corporate annual tax was at 35%
and the annual cash ow was about 676,000 V except for year 1
which had
504,000 V and year 2 with 172,000 V. At a base dis-
count rate of 18% over a period of 25 years, a positive NPV of
2,515,000 V was estimated according to Equations (9)e(12). The
positive NPV indicates that the project is viable and protable,
hence worth undertaking. This means that the income from the
project is sufcient to ensure economic viability of the project.
According to Drury [152], the NPV method also indicates the po-
tential increase in present consumption to the ordinary share-
holders, after any funds used have been repaid with interest. In this
case, it is assumed that the investment in the project (1,180,000 V)
is nanced by borrowing 3,696,000 V (the present value of cash
ows from the project) at 18% and repays the loan and interest out
of the projects proceeds as they occur. The 2,515,000 V
(3,696,000e1,180,000 V) would be available for current con-
sumption and the remaining 1,180,000 V can be invested in the
project. Therefore acceptance of this project enables shareholders
value to be increased by the present value of 2,515,000 V. Hence,
since the NPV is positive, the acceptance of this project should lead
to the maximization of shareholders wealth.
A sensitivity analysis was carried out to determine the limit at
which the investment would be no longer viable. The interest rate
was increased at each time by 1% and at 28%, the NPV was negative
at about
250 V. The net present values at different interest rates
are indicated in Fig. 2. Therefore the project would be viable up to
the interest rate of 27% giving an NPV of 76,000 V.
3.7.3. Payback period
The payback period is the length of time that is required for a
stream of cash proceeds from an investment to recover the original
cash outlay required by the investment (Drury, 2001). Using
Equation (11), the PBP is calculated by dividing the total initial cash
outlay by the amount of the expected annual cash proceeds. This
project requires an initial cash outlay of 1,180,000 V and is expected
to produce annual cash inows of 676,000 Vy
1 for 25 years, the
payback period is 1,180,000 V divided by 676,000 V or 1.75 years.
This indicates that the investment would take a maximum of two
years to pay for itself. This implies that the project will only be
making prot after 1.75 years. Projects with quick payback periods
are highly preferable.
4. Recommendations
There is need for a clear legal and policy framework enshrining
solid waste management in all Zambian towns. It should dene
responsibilities and functions of all administrative structures and
stakeholders. The legal framework must be multifaceted incorpo-
rating all issues of municipal solid waste management and associ-
ated issues such as health, sanitation, water and air pollution,
nancing and community involvement. The responsibilities, roles
and functions of local authorities, the environmental management
agency, local communities, line ministries and solid waste man-
agement companies should be clearly spelt out. A participatory
approach in municipal solid waste management must be encour-
aged. Local authorities and line ministries must spearhead the
enacting of these laws and regulations, while the environmental
management agency must be actively involved in regulating and
monitoring the activities of local authorities, solid waste manage-
ment companies, the private business sector and the local com-
munities in municipal solid waste management. There is a need to
educate and sensitize the local households on the segregation of
solid waste at source. There is a wrong perception that illegal
dumping is cheaper. Trading and industrial companies must also be
educated and sensitized. There is need to let people know that
there is a cost to waste disposal. The problem of managing solid
waste must be tackled with an all-inclusive approach. Waste
collection zones must be clearly dened. Dropping and collection
 A. Shane et al. / Renewable Energy 103 (2017) 1e14
1,150
950
NPV (1000) 750
550
350
150
(50)
18 20 22
Interest rates (%)
Fig. 2. NPV sensitivity analysis.
points must be clearly dened in residential areas, central business
areas, industrial areas and markets. Once the solid waste has been
properly segregated and dumped at designated collection points, it
will be easier and cheaper for the solid waste management com-
panies to collect the waste and transport it to the power plant to be
used for power production.
Currently solid waste generated in residential homes, markets,
restaurants, hotels, lodges, central business and industrial areas is
not weighted and recorded. Solid waste management companies
and local authorities in each district must create registers in which
solid waste generated per day in each area must be recorded. There
records must be kept both in hard copy and on a server. Each dis-
trict must create a database in which these daily records should be
recorded. The provincial and national ofces for local authorities
should also create similar databases at their levels. This will enable
stakeholders to properly plan and take appropriate measures as
regards to solid waste management. Solid waste management
companies should transport the municipal solid waste and sell it to
the companies operating the anaerobic reactors and the biogas
power plant. As the solid waste would be properly segregated, only
the municipal solid waste should be taken to the power plant and
the other waste can be transported and dumped to designated
dumping sites according to the laws and regulations.
Funding biogas power plants in urban areas of Zambia could be
through Public Private Partnership (PPP). The public and the busi-
ness community could be invited to come on board and become
partners by buying shares in the company. Private companies such
as the Copperbelt Energy Corporation, solid waste management
companies and other companies engaged in energy supply could
also be invited to become shareholders. With a well-written busi-
ness proposal, established shareholders could seek for funding in
the form of a loan from local commercial banks and lending in-
stitutions. The World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund
(IMF) and the African Development Bank (AfDB) could be
approached with such a viable proposal for funding as they have
funded energy projects in Zambia and in other countries before.
The Government Republic of Zambia should encourage biogas -
power production from municipal solid waste by introducing in-
centives such as: tax exemption on components of CHP units,
anaerobic digestion reactors, biogas upgrading and storage units
11
24 26 28
and any other components associated with energy production from
biogas. The government through the Energy Regulation Board
could also set tariffs that favor power production from municipal
solid waste.
The way the laws and regulations and power transmission and
distribution infrastructure are at present, the proposed project
could sign an agreement with the Zambia Electricity Supply Cor-
poration. This agreement would enable the biogas power plant
project holding company to sell the electricity to ZESCO and feed it
directly into established transmission lines. The transmission and
distribution would remain the sole responsibility of ZESCO. The
biogas power plant would directly sell the thermal heat to factories
and companies that use heat in their processing and production
activities. Each district in Zambia has the light and heavy industrial
areas in which companies that use heat in their manufacturing
processes are located. Such companies and or factories that need
heat in their daily processes include but are not limited to milk
processing factories, plastic and polyethylene forming companies,
beverage processing and canning, grocery production, bakeries and
breweries.
There is need to further conduct research on biogas power plant
models using other feedstock resources available both in urban and
rural areas. For instance, the districts in the Copperbelt province
have large quantities forest residues such as timber offcuts and saw
dust, while most rural districts of Southern, Eastern, Central,
Northern and Muchinga provinces have high potential from agri-
cultural residues. Urban towns also have the potential to use
wastewater from sewer treatment plants. These could all be
explored and could contribute immensely towards job creation,
alleviation from energy poverty, rural and urban development,
greenhouse gas emissions reduction, reduction of tree cutting for
charcoal and rewood, replacement of chemical fertilizer with
organic fertilizer, health and sanitation and conservation of nitro-
gen in soils.
5. Conclusion
The business model canvas show for the power production and
supply from biogas generated from municipal solid waste indicated
that urban districts in Zambia have potential to produce electrical
12 A. Shane et al. / Renewable Energy 103 (2017) 1e14
and thermal power which could complement the shortfall in en-
ergy needs in the country. The benets of power production from
power plants using municipal solid waste generated in urban towns
would not be limited to urban areas alone but would spread to rural
areas. This is so because charcoal and rewood consumed in urban
towns is produced in rural areas and the organic fertilizer produced
may mostly be used by farmers in rural areas. Biogas production
would result into charcoal and rewood being replaced and tree
cutting in rural areas would reduce consequently a reduction in
deforestation. Use of municipal solid waste to produce biogas for
power production would reduce problems associated with
municipal solid waste treatment and disposal. There would be no
bad odor nuisance, reduced pest breeding areas and reduction of
cholera, diarrhea, dysentery and typhoid which are associated with
municipal solid waste disposal in Zambia. Use of MSW would also
contribute towards reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, nitro-
gen conservation, and energy poverty reduction, improved living
standards and bring about development.
The real case example (Kitwe Town) in this study has the po-
tential to install a 1.164 MW power plant in which electricity sales
would earn 394,000 and thermal heat 264,000 Vy
1. Electricity
from the biogas power plant would save 199,000 and
19,000 Vy
1from charcoal and rewood use respectively. The
project would produce 920 tonnes of organic fertilizer with a net
value of 381,000 Vy
1. A simple payback period calculation in-
dicates that the power plant would have a 2 years payback period
and the Net Present Values at 18% base interest rate would be
2,515,000 V and the project would still be viable up to an interest
rate of 28%. Initially rural households would lose earnings from
charcoal and rewood sales but would eventually earn 1.56 Vd
1
per household if they engaged in other productive activities. Tree
cutting in rural areas for charcoal and rewood leads into 0.788 Gg
of nitrogen loss from soils. A total of 1.46 Gg CO2eq would be
avoided from emissions resulting from biogas replacing charcoal
and rewood, municipal solid waste being used as feedstock for
biogas production and non-application of chemical fertilizer to
soils.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the nancial support provided by the
Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, gs2:King Mon-
gkuts University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand and
Copperbelt University, Kitwe, Zambia for the doctoral studies of the
rst author.
References
[1] International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2013, 2013 (Accessed 12
December 2015), http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/
2013/WEO2013_Ch06_Renewables.pdf.
[2] REN21, Renewables 2014, Global Status Report, 2014. http://www.ren21.net/
Portals/0/documents/Resources/GSR/2014/GSR2014_fullreport_low_res.pdf.
[3] V.C. Moreno, S. Papasidero, G.E. Scarponi, D. Guglielmi, V. Cozzani, Analysis of
accidents in biogas production and upgrading, Renew. Energy (2015) 1e8,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.10.017.
[4] A.M. Omer, Y. Fadalla, Technical note: biogas energy technology in Sudan,
Renew. Energy 28 (2003) 499e507.
[5] R. Arthur, M.F. Baidoo, E. Antwi, Biogas as a potential renewable energy
source: a Ghanaian case study, Renew. Energy 36 (2011) 1510e1516.
[7] J. Lam, F.T. Heegde, S.V. Eije, Reader for the Compact Course on Domestic
Biogas Technology and Mass Dissemination, University of Oldenburg,
Netherlands, 2014.
[6] S.G. Gwavuya, S. Abele, I. Barfuss, M. Zeller, J. Mller, Household energy
economics in rural Ethiopia: a cost-benet analysis of biogas energy, Renew.
Energy 48 (2012) 202e209.
[8] S. Prasertsana, B. Sajjakulnukit, Biomass and biogas energy in Thailand: po-
tential, opportunity and barriers, Renew. Energy 31 (2006) 599e610.
[9] A. Shane, S.H. Gheewala, G. Kasali, Potential, barriers and prospects of biogas
production in Zambia, J. Sustain. Energy Environ. 6 (2015) 21e26.
[10] A. Shane, S.H. Gheewala, B. Fungtammasan, S. Bonnet, T. Silaletruksa, S. Phiri,
Bioenergy resource assessment for Zambia, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 53
(2016) 93e104.
[11] A. Sanches-Pereira, T. Lonnqvist, M.F. Gomez, S.T. Coelho, L.G. Tudeschini, Is
natural gas a backup fuel against shortages of biogas or a threat to the
Swedish vision of pursuing a vehicle eet independent of fossil fuels?
Renew. Energy 83 (2015) 1187e1199.
[12] A. Colmenar-Santos, G. Zarzuelo-Puch, D. Borge-Diez, C. Garca-Dieguez,
Thermodynamic and exergo economic analysis of energy recovery system of
biogas from a wastewater treatment plant and use in a stirling engine,
Renew. Energy 88 (2016) 171e184.
[13] AEBIOM (European Biomass Association), A Biogas Road Map for Europe,
Renewable Energy House, Brussels, 2009.
[14] H.K. Ravuri, Role of factors inuencing on anaerobic process for production
of bio hydrogen, future fuel, Int. J. Adv. Chem. 1 (2) (2013) 31e38.
[15] Y. Feng, Y. Zhang, X. Quan, S. Chen, Enhanced anaerobic digestion of waste
activated sludge digestion by the addition of zero valent iron, Water Res. 52
(2014) 242e250.
[16] E. Abdelsalam, M. Samer, Y.A. Attia, M.A. Abdel-Hadi, H.E. Hassan, Y. Badr,
Comparison of nanoparticles effects on biogas and methane production from
anaerobic digestion of cattle dung slurry, Renew. Energy 87 (2016) 592e598.
[17] S. Rasi, A. Veijanen, J. Rintala, Trace compounds of biogas from different
biogas production plants, Energy 32 (2007), 1375e1380.
[18] B.J. Bora, U.K. Saha, Experimental evaluation of a rice bran biodiesel e biogas
runs dual fuel diesel engine at varying compression ratios, Renew. Energy 87
(2016) 782e790.
[19] A. Whiting, A. Azapagic, Investigation on combustion performance and
emission characteristics of a DI (direct injection) diesel engine fueled with
biogas-diesel in dual fuel mode, Energy 70 (2014) 181e193.
[20] L. Naik, Z. Gebreegziabher, V. Tumwesige, B. Balana, J. Mwirigi, C. Austin,
Factors determining the stability and productivity of small scale anaerobic
digesters, Biomass Bioenergy 30 (2014) 1e7.
[21] Y. Vogeli, C.R. Lohri, A. Gallardo, S. Diener, C. Zurbrugg, Anaerobic Digestion
of Biowaste in Developing Countries: Practical Information and Case Studies,
Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Dubendorf,
Switzerland, 2014.
[22] W. Kossmann, U. Ponitz, S. Habermehl, T. Hoerz, P. Kramer, B. Klingler,
C. Kellner, T. Wittur, F.V. Klopotek, A. Kreig, H. Euler, Biogas Digest, in: Biogas
Basics, Information and Advisory Service on Appropriate Technology, vol. 1,
1999. Germany.
[23] Food and Agricultural Organization, Biogas Technology: a Training Manual
for Extension, FAO, Nepal, 1996.
[24] G.D. Zupancic, V. Grilc, Anaerobic treatment and biogas production from
organic waste, in: Sunil Kumar (Ed.), Management of Organic Waste, 2012,
ISBN 978-953-307-925-7.
[25] F.A. Batzias, D.K. Sidiras, E.K. Spyrou, Evaluating livestock manures for biogas
production: a GIS based method, Renew. Energy 30 (2005) 1161e1176.
[26] G.S. Miguel, B. Corona, Hybridizing concentrated solar power (CSP) with
biogas and biomethane as an alternative to natural gas: analysis of envi-
ronmental performance using LCA, Renew. Energy 66 (2014) 580e587.
[27] D.J. Seo, Z. Gou, H. Fujita, T. Fujii, A. Sakoda, Simple fabrication of molecular
sieving carbon for biogas upgrading via a temperature controlled carbon-
ization of Phyllostachys pubescens, Renew. Energy 86 (2016) 693e702.
[28] P.C. Ghimire, SNV supported domestic biogas programmes in Asia and Africa,
Renew. Energy 49 (2013) 90e94.
[29] L. Appels, J. Baeyens, J. Degreve, R. Dewil, Principles and potential of the
anaerobic digestion of waste-activated sludge, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 34
(2008) 755e781.
[30] D.M. Wall, E. Allen, R.O. Shea, P. OKiely, J.D. Murphy, Investigating two-
phase digestion of grass silage for demand-driven biogas applications: ef-
fect of particle size and rumen uid addition, Renew. Energy 86 (2016)
1215e1223.
[31] GIZ, Guide to Biogas: from Production to Use, Federal Ministry of Food,
Agriculture and Consumer Protection due to a decision of the German Fed-
eral Parliament, 2010.
[32] C. Li, P. Champagne, B.C. Anderson, Enhanced biogas production from
anaerobic co-digestion of municipal wastewater treatment sludge and fat, oil
and grease by a modied two-stage thermophilic digester system with
selected thermo-chemical pre-treatment, Renew. Energy 83 (2015)
474e482.
[33] G. Li, S. Niu, L. Ma, X. Zhang, Assessment of environmental and economic
costs of rural household energy consumption in Loess Hilly Region, Gansu
Province, China, Renew. Energy 34 (2009) 1438e1444.
[34] H. Niu, Y. He, U. Desideri, P. Zhang, H. Qin, Rural household energy con-
sumption and its implications for eco-environments in NW China: a case
study, Renew. Energy 65 (2014) 137e145.
[35] IPCC, Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, National Green-
house Gas Inventories Programme, Institute for Global Environmental Stra-
tegies, Tokyo, 2006.
[36] A. Shane, S.H. Gheewala, Missed environmental benets of biogas production
in Zambia, J. Clean. Prod. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2016.07.060.
[37] J. Wim van Nes, T.D. Nhete, Biogas for a better life: an African initiative,
Renew. Energy World (JulyeAugust) (2007) 84e87.
[38] S. Auburger, A. Jacobs, B. Marlander, E. Bahrs, Economic optimization of
 A. Shane et al. / Renewable Energy 103 (2017) 1e14
feedstock mix for energy production with biogas technology in Germany
with a special focus on sugar beets e Effects on greenhouse gas emissions
and energy balances, Renew. Energy 89 (2016) 1e11.
[39] C.M. Sastre, Y. Gonza lez-Arechavala, A.M. Santos, Global warming and en-
ergy yield evaluation of Spanish wheat straw electricity generation e a LCA
that takes into account parameter uncertainty and variability, Appl. Energy
154 (2015) 900e911.
[40] D. Spinelli, S. Jez, R. Pogni, R. Basosi, Environmental and life cycle analysis of
a biodiesel production line from sun ower in the Province of Siena (Italy),
Energy Policy 59 (2013) 492e506.
[41] M.G. Mengistu, B. Simane, G. Eshete, T.S. Workneh, A review on biogas
technology and its contributions to sustainable rural livelihood in Ethiopia,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 48 (2015) 306e316.
[42] O. Mfune, E.K. Boon, Promoting renewable energy technologies for rural
development in Africa: experiences of Zambia, J. Hum. Ecol. 24 (3) (2008)
175e189.
[43] CIBiogas, Updating Course on Biogas Energies: Module 2 e Class 1 Notes,
Baseline for Biogas Production and Bioconversion, 2015.
[44] Central Statistics Ofce, Living Conditions Monitoring Survey Report 2006
and 2010, Central Statistics Ofce, Lusaka, 2012.
[45] http://www.maplandia.com/zambia/copperbelt/kitwe/kitwe/(Accessed
September 2016).
[46] The Copperbelt University, Environmental Impact Statement for Area-D
Open Pit Mining of the Mopani Copper Mines Plc, Institute of Environ-
mental Management, 2009.
[47] Central Statistics Ofce, Census of Population and Housing Report: Pre-
liminary Population Figures, 2011.
[48] A.O. Chifungula, Report on Solid Waste Management in Zambia, Auditor
Generals Ofce, Lusaka, Zambia, 2007.
[49] B.K. Senkwe, A.H. Mwale, Solid Waste in Kitwe: Solid Waste Characterization
Study for the City of Kitwe, Zambia, Phase 1, SINPA 28, Institute for housing
and urban development studies, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 2001.
[50] R.M. Jingura, R. Matengaifa, Optimization of biogas production by anaerobic
digestion for sustainable energy development in Zimbabwe, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 13 (2009) 1116e1120.
[51] M.H. Duku, S. Gu, E.B. Hagan, A comprehensive review of biomass resources
and biofuels potential in Ghana, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (2011)
404e415.
[52] E.B. Agbro, N.A. Ogie, A comprehensive review of biomass resources and
biofuels production potential in Nigeria, Res. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 1 (3) (2012)
149e155.
[53] C. Shonhiwa, An assessment of biomass residue sustainably available for
thermochemical conversion to energy in Zimbabwe, Biomass Bioenergy 52
(2013) 131e138.
[54] Y.S. Mohammed, A.S. Mokhtar, N. Bashir, Sustainable potential of bioenergy
resources for distributed power generation development in Nigeria, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 34 (2014) 361e370.
[55] B. Amigun, H. von Blottnitz, Investigation of scale economies for African
biogas installations, Energy Convers. Manag. 48 (2007) 3090e3094.
[56] B. Amigun, H. von Blottnitz, Capacity cost and location-cost analyses for
biogas plants in Africa, J. Resour. Conser. Recycl. 55 (2010) 63e73.
[57] I.N. Itodo, G.E. Agyo, P. Yusuf, Performance evaluation of a biogas stove for
cooking in Nigeria, Energy South. Afr. 18 (2007) 14e18.
[58] L. Yu, K. Yaoqiu, H. Ningsheng, W. Zhifeng, X. Lianzhong, Popularizing
household scale biogas digesters for rural sustainable energy development
and greenhouse gas mitigation, Renew. Energy 33 (2008) 2027e2035.
[59] K. Rajendran, S. Aslanzadeh, F. Johansson, M.J. Taherzadeh, Experimental,
Eeconomical, Evaluation of a novel biogas digester, Energy Convers. Manag.
74 (2013) 183e191.
[60] A.J. White, D.W. Kirk, J.W. Graydon, Analysis of small scale biogas utilization
systems on Ontario cattle farms, Renew. Energy 36 (2011) 1019e1025.
[61] C.J. Banks, M. Chesshire, S. Heaven, R. Arnold, Anaerobic digestion of source
segregated domestic food waste: performance assessment by mass and en-
ergy balance, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2) (2011) 612e620.
[62] Biogas Team, Biogas for Better Life, an African Initiative, 2007. Business plan
2006e2020.
[63] R. Gautam, S. Bara, S. Herat, Biogas as a sustainable energy source in Nepal:
present status and future challenges, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (1)
(2009) 248e252.
[64] G. Dekelver, S. Ruzigana, J. Lam, Report on the Feasibility Study for a Biogas
Support Programme in the Republic of Rwanda, SNV, 2005.
[65] N. Tonkunya, T. Wongwuttanasatian, Utilization of biogas-diesel mixture as
fuel in a fertilizer pelletizing machine for reduction of greenhouse gas
emission in small farms, Energy Sustain. Dev. 17 (2013) 240e244.
[66] R. Basosi1, D. Spinelli, A. Fierro, S. Jez, Mineral nitrogen Fertilizers: Envi-
ronmental Impact of Production and Use, 2014, pp. 3e43. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/264124538_Mineral_Nitrogen_Fertilizers_
Environmental_Impact_of_Production_and_Use (Accessed 9 September
2016).
[67] International Fertilizer Industry Association, Fertilizers, Climate Change and
Enhancing Agricultural Productivity Sustainably, IFA, Paris, France, July,
2009.
[68] J. Bellarby, B. Foereid, A. Hastings, P. Smith, Cool Farming: Climate Impacts of
Agriculture and Mitigation Potential, Greenpeace International, Amsterdam,
the Netherlands, 2008.
13
[69] H.C. Flynn, P. Smith, Greenhouse Gas Budgets of Crop Production e Current
and Likely Future Trends, IFA, Paris, France, 2010. January.
[70] TGO, GHG Emissions from Fertilizer, Greenhouse Gas Management Organi-
zation, 2015. www.haicarbonlabel.tgo.or.th/tools/les.php? (Accessed 27
March 2016).
[71] A. Kool, M. Marinussen, H. Blonk, LCI Data for the Calculation Tool Feedprint
for Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Feed Production and Utilization, in: GHG
Emissions of N, P and K Fertilizer Production, 2012.
[72] R. Lal, Carbon emission from farm operations, Environ. Int. 30 (2004b)
981e990.
[73] JCTR, Basic Needs Basket, Jesuit Centre for Theological Reection, Lusaka,
2015. www.jctr.org.zm (Accessed 26 January 2016).
[74] Centre for Energy, Environment and Engineering of Zambia, 2010 Baseline
Wood Fuel Survey for Zambia, UNEP, 2010.
[75] K. Chiwama, I. Kaywala, E. Khatiwada, F. Heegde, H. Oppenoorth, K. Mwanza,
Feasibility Study Report: Domestic Biogas Programme in Zambia, SNV and
Hivos, Netherlands, 2012.
[76] UNDP, Integrating Energy Access and Employment Creation to Accelerate
Progress on the MDGs in Sub-Saharan Africa, United Nations Development
Programme, New York, USA, 2012.
9 [77] K. Ekouevl, V. Tuntivate, Household Energy Access for Cooking and Heating,
World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
[78] M.M. Rahman, M.M. Hasan, J.V. Paatero, Hybrid application of biogas and
solar resources to fulll household energy needs: a potentially viable option
in rural areas of developing countries, Renew. Energy 68 (2014) 35e45.
[79] Environmental Council of Zambia, Zambia Environment Outlook Report 3,
2008. Lusaka, Zambia.
[80] N. Naik, E. Tkachenko, R. Wung, The Anaerobic Digestion of Organic
Municipal Solid Waste in California, University of California, 2013.
[81] S.E. Nayono, Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Solid Waste for Energy Pro-
duction, KIT Scientic Publishing, 2009.
[82] S. Semple, A. Apsley, A. Wushishi, J. Smith, Commentary: switching to biogas
- what effect could it have on indoor air quality and human health, J. Biomass
Bioenergy 70 (2014) 125e129.
[83] H. Sanbata, A. Asfaw, A. Kumie, Indoor air pollution in slum neighborhoods of
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Atmos. Environ. 89 (2014) 230e234.
[84] E.I. Ohimain, The benets and potential impacts of household cooking fuel
substitution with bio-ethanol produced from cassava feedstock in Nigeria,
Energy Sustain. Dev. 16 (2012) 352e362.
[85] D.G. Fullerton, N. Bruce, S.B. Gordon, Indoor air pollution from biomass fuel
smoke is a major health concern in the developing world, Trans. R. Soc. Trop.
Med. Hyg. 102 (2008) 843e851.
[86] E. Anderson, Turning waste into value: using human urine to enrich soils for
sustainable food production in Uganda, J. Clean. Prod. 96 (2015) 290e298.
[87] F. Papendiek, E. Tartiu, P. Morone, J. Venus, A. Hong, Assessing the economic
protability of fodder legume production for green bio-reneries: a cost-
benet analysis to evaluate farmers protability, J. Clean. Prod. (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.108.
[88] M. Ribaudo, J. Delgado, L. Hansen, M. Livingston, R. Mosheim, J. Williamson,
Nitrogen in Agricultural Systems: Implications for Conservation Policy, U.S.
Dept. of Agriculture, Econ. Res. Serv, 2011. ERR-127.
[89] A.J. Ashworth, A.M. Taylor, D.L. Reed, F.L. Allen, P.D. Keyser, D.D. Tyler,
Environmental impact assessment of regional switch grass feedstock pro-
duction comparing nitrogen input scenarios and legume-intercropping sys-
tems, J. Clean. Prod. 87 (2015) 227e234.
[90] D. Pimentel, Conservation of Fertilizers and Livestock Manure: Pollution
Prevention, Department of entomology & section of ecology & systematics,
Cornell University, 1997.
[91] K. Singh, A. Shishodia, Environmental Economics: Theory and Applications,
Sage Publications, 2007.
[92] J.U. Smith, The Potential of Small Scale Biogas Digesters to Improve Liveli-
hoods and Long Term Sustainability of Ecosystem Services in Sub-saharan
Africa, DFID, UK, 2013.
[93] J. Li, C. Kong, Q. Duan, T. Luo, Z. Mei, Y. Lei, Mass ow and energy balance plus
economic analysis of a full-scale biogas plant in the riceewineepig system,
Bioresour. Technol. 193 (2015) 62e67.
[94] W.M. Budzianowski, D.A. Budzianowski, Economic analysis of biomethane
and bioelectricity generation from biogas using different support schemes
and plant congurations, Energy 88 (2015) 658e666.
[95] United Nations Environmental Program, Strategies and Mechanisms for
Promoting Cleaner Production Investments in Developing Countries: Prof-
iting from Cleaner Production Performing Net Present Value (NPV) Calcula-
tions, UNEP, 2015.
[96] V.H. Dale, R.A. Efroymson, K.L. Kline, M.H. Langholtz, P.N. Leiby, G.A. Oladosu,
M.R. Davis, M.E. Downing, M.R. Hilliard, Indicators for assessing socioeco-
nomic sustainability of bioenergy systems: a short list of practical measures,
Ecol. Indic. 26 (2013) 87e102.
[97] A. Wresta, D. Andriani, A. Saepudin, H. Sudibyo, 2nd International Confer-
ence on Sustainable Energy Engineering and Application, ICSEEA 2014:
economic analysis of cow manure biogas as energy source for electricity
power generation in small scale ranch, Energy Procedia 68 (2015) 122e131.
[98] S. Chakrabarty, F.I.M. MuktadirBoksh, A. Chakrabarty, Economic viability of
biogas and green self-employment opportunities, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 28 (2013) 757e766.
[99] J.Y. Kang, D.W. Kang, T.S. Kim, K.B. Hur, Comparative economic analysis of
14 A. Shane et al. / Renewable Energy 103 (2017) 1e14
gas turbine based power generation and combined heat and power systems
using biogas fuel, Energy 67 (2014) 309e318.
[100] B.K. Senkwe, M.S. Kambole, J. Frijns, Improvement of Refuse Collection in
Kitwe: a Participatory Approach, SINPA 32, Institute for housing and urban
development studies, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1999.
[101] P. Sosnowski, A. Wieczorek, S. Ledakowicz, Anaerobic co-digestion of sewage
sludge and organic fraction of municipal solid wastes, Adv. Environ. Res. 7
(2003) 609e616.
[102] J.D. Murphy, K. McCarthy, The optimal production of biogas for use as a
transport fuel in Ireland, Renew. Energy 30 (2005) 2111e2127.
[103] S. Yokoyama, The Asian Biomass Handbook: a Guide for Biomass Production
and Utilization, The Japan Institute of Energy, 2008.
[104] A. Khalid, M. Arshad, M. Anjum, T. Mahmood, L. Dawson, The anaerobic
digestion of solid organic waste Review, Waste Manag. 31 (8) (2011)
1737e1744.
[105] F. Kemausuor, A. Kamp, S.T. Thomsen, E.C. Bensah, H. Ostergard, Assessment
of biomass residue availability and bioenergy yields in Ghana, Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 86 (2014) 28e37.
[106] E.U. Khan, B. Mainali, A. Martin, S. Silveira, Techno-economic analysis of
small scale biogas based polygeneration systems: Bangladesh case study,
Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 7 (2014) 68e78.
[107] M.M. Maghanaki, B. Ghobadian, G. Naja, R.J. Galogah, Potential of biogas
production in Iran, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 28 (2013) 702e714.
[108] T. Bond, M.R. Templeton, History and future of domestic biogas plants in the
developing world, Energy Sustain. Dev. 15 (2011) 347e354.
[109] International Energy Agency, Country Report Germany, IEA bioenergy task
37, Angers, France, 2014.
[110] P. Hochloff, M. Braun, Optimizing biogas plants with excess power unit and
storage capacity in electricity and control reserve markets, Biomass Bio-
energy 65 (2014) 125e135.
[111] H. Hahn, W. Ganagin, K. Hartmann, M. Wachendorf, Cost analysis of concepts
for a demand oriented biogas supply for exible power generation, Bio-
resour. Technol. 170 (2014) 211e220.
[112] K. Starr, A. Ramirez, H. Meerman, G. Villalba, X. Gabarrell, Explorative eco-
nomic analysis of a novel biogas upgrading technology using carbon
mineralization, A case study for Spain, Energy 79 (2015) 298e309.
[113] G. Kiely, Environmental Engineering, McGraw Hill, London, 1997.
[114] S. Thapa, J. Keyser, Agriculture and Environmental Services, Agribusiness
Indicators, The World Bank, Zambia, 2012.
[115] J.Q. Dilidili, C.A. Polinga, R. Ararao-Pelle, R.S. Sangalang, Biogas Technology in
Philippines: a Synthesis of Various Readings on Biogas Technology, 2011.
Cavite.
[116] E.L. Ohimain, The benets and potential impacts of household cooking fuel
substitution with bio-ethanol produced from cassava feedstock in Nigeria,
Energy Sustain. Dev. 16 (2012) 352e362.
[117] A. Shane, S.H. Gheewala, Missed environmental benets of biogas produc-
tion in Zambia, in: The 5th International Conference on Green and Sus-
tainable Innovation and the 5th TIChe International Conference, November
8e10, 2015. Dusit Thani Pattaya, Thailand.
[118] T. Al Seadi, D. Rutz, H. Prassl, M. Kottner, T. Finsterwalder, S. Volk, R. Janssen,
Biogas Handbook, University of Southern Denmark, 2008, pp. 9e10. www.
lemvigbiogas.com (Accessed 23 January 2015).
[119] National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Feasibility Study of Anaerobic
Digestion of Food Waste in St. Bernard, Louisiana, The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2013.
Interagency Agreement IAG-08-0719 and Task No WFD3.1001.
[120] Kitwe City Council and Environmental Council of Zambia, Kitwe District
State of Environment Outlook Report, 2010.
[121] C. Gallert, J. Winter, Solid and liquid residues as raw materials for biotech-
nology, Naturwissenschatten 89 (2002) 483e496.
[122] K. Ostrem, Greening Waste: Anaerobic Digestion for Treating the Organic
Fraction of Municipal Solid Wastes, Department of Earth and Environmental
Engineering, School of Engineering and Applied Science, 2004. Columbia
University.
[123] J. Mayeya, C. Mukosa, Relationship between Pests Found in the Homes and
Rubbish Sites with Common Illnesses Recorded at Health Centres in Lusaka
Compounds, 1996. Lusaka, Zambia.
[124] O.C. Kawanga, The Impact of Urbanization on Sanitary Conveyances and
Sewage Treatment Facilities for the City of Lusaka, 2003. Zambia.
[125] J.H. Kilabuko, H. Matsuki, S. Nakai, Air quality and acute respiratory illness in
biomass fuel using homes in bagamoyo of Tanzania, Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 4 (1) (2007) 39e44.
[126] World Health Organization, Air Quality Guidelines: Global Update 2005,
2006. http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E90038.pdf (Accessed 10
February 2016).
[127] M. Ezzati, D. Kammen, Indoor air pollution from biomass combustion and
acute respiratory infections in Kenya: an exposure response study, Lancet
358 (2001) 619e624.
[128] J. Regalado, R. Perez-Padilla, R. Sansores, J.I. Paramo Ramirez, M. Brauer,
P. Pare, S. Vedal, The effect of biomass burning on respiratory symptoms and
lung function in rural Mexican women, Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 174
(2006) 901e905.
[129] M. Kanagawa, T. Nakata, Analysis of the energy access improvement and its
socio-economic impacts in rural areas of developing countries, J. Ecol. Econ.
62 (2) (2007) 319e329.
[130] Q. Xiao, E. Saikawa, R.J. Yokelson, P. Chen, C. Li, Indoor air pollution from
burning yak dung as a household fuel in Tibet, Atmos. Environ. 102 (2015)
406e412.
[131] C. Li, S. Kang, P. Chen, Q. Zhang, J. Guo, J. Mi, P. Basang, Q. Luosang, K.R. Smith,
Personal PM2.5 and indoor CO in nomadic tents using open and chimney
biomass stoves on the Tibetan Plateau, Atmos. Environ. 59 (2012) 207e213.
[132] J.Y. Po, J.M. FitzGerald, C. Carlsten, Respiratory disease associated with solid
biomass fuel exposure in rural women and children: systematic review and
meta-analysis, Thorax 66 (2011) 232e239.
[133] Z. Pei-dong, J. Guome, W. Gang, Contribution to emission reduction of CO2
and SO2 by household biogas construction in rural China, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 11 (2007) 1903e1912.
[134] L.X. Zhang, C.B. Wang, Z.F. Yang, B. Chen, Carbon emissions from energy
combustion in rural China, J. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2 (2010) 980e989.
[135] A. Akbulut, Techno-economic analysis of electricity and heat generation from
farm-scale biogas plant: iekdagi case study, Energy 44 (2012) 381e390.
[136] BOZ, Survey on How Commercial Banks Determine Lending Interest Rates in
Zambia, Bank of Zambia, 2010.
[137] F.Z. Mbao, C. Kapembwa, O. Mooka, T. Rasmussen, J. Sichalwe, Determinants
of Bank Lending Rates in Zambia: A Balance Sheet Approach, Bank of Zambia
Working Paper WP/02/2014.
[138] PWC, Zambia at 50 Cracking the Figures for the 2015 Budgetary Changes,
National Budget Commentary, 2015. www.pwc.com/zm (Accessed 27
January 2016).
[139] Government Republic of Zambia, Chapter 4, Sectoral Development Stategies:
C Power Sector, 2007. Lusaka, Zambia.
[140] Energy Regulation Board, The Energy Sector Report, 2008. www.erb.org.zm.
[141] Energy Regulation Board, The Energy Sector Report, 2014. www.erb.org.zm.
[142] E. Fischer, T. Schmidt, S. Hora, J. Giersdorf, W. Stinner, F. Scholwin, Renew-
able Energy Project Development Programme East Africa, in: Agro-industrial
Biogas in Kenya: Potentials, Estimates for Tariffs, Policy and Business Rec-
ommendations, GTZ, 2010.
[143] IEA-ETSAP, IRENA, Thermal Energy Storage Technology Brief, 2013, p. 17.
www.etsap.org. www.irena.org (Accessed 2 March 2016).
[144] Zambia Environmental Management Agency, Environmental Management
Act, Statutory Instrument 12, 2011, pp. 87e178.
[145] Zambia Environmental Management Agency, Environmental Impact
Assessment Regulations, Statutory Instrument 28, 1997, pp. 93e117.
[146] Government Republic of Zambia, The Laws of Zambia, The Fees and Fines Act,
Statutory Instrument No. 41 of 2015.
[147] Japanese International Corporation Agency, Cost of Doing Business in
Zambia, JICA, 2011, pp. 1e16.
[148] C. Riva, A. Schievano, G. DImporzano, F. Adani, Production costs and oper-
ative margins in electric energy generation from biogas. Full-scale case
studies in Italy, Waste Manag. 34 (2014) 1429e1435.
[149] KPMG, Zambia Fiscal Guide for the Year 2013/2014, 2014.
[150] Zambia Revenue Authority, The Tax System in Zambia, 2015.
[151] W.M. Nhekairo, The Final Report on the Tax System in Zambia, Jesuit Centre
for Theological Reection, 2015.
[152] C. Drury, Management Accounting for Business Decisions, second ed.,
Thomson learning, 2001.