Economic Benefit and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Potential of A Family-Scale Cowdung Anaerobic Biogas Digester

*Agus Haryanto  -  University of Lampung, Indonesia
Dwi Cahyani  -  Wageningen University, Netherlands
Sugeng Triyono  -  University of Lampung, Indonesia
Fauzan Murdapa  -  University of Lampung, Indonesia
Dwi Haryono  -  University of Lampung, Indonesia
Published: 22 Mar 2017.
Open Access Copyright (c) 2017 International Journal of Renewable Energy Development

Citation Format:
Article Info
Section: Original Research Article
Language: EN
Statistics: 1299 1185

The objective of this research was to evaluate economic benefit and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction potential of a family-scale anaerobic cowdung biogas digester. Research was conducted at two villages in Lampung Province, namely Marga Lestari, District of South Lampung and Pesawaran Indah, District of Pesawaran. Economic benefit and GHG emission reduction potential were evaluated from LPG saving due to biogas utilisation for cooking and fertilizer substitution by slurry digestate. Results showed that a family-scale anaerobic cowdung biogas digester demonstrated a good potential to reduce GHG emission, but not in economic. A digester with 4 heads of cow produced biogas at a rate of 1582 L/day. With average methane content of 53.6%, energy value of the biogas was equivalent to 167 kg LPG and able to substitute 52 bottles LPG annually. A family-scale biogas contributed 108.1 USD/year and potentially reduced GHG emission by 5292.5 kg CO2e/year resulted from biomethane potential, LPG, and fertilizer savings.

Article History: Received November 15th 2016; Received in revised form January 16th 2017; Accepted February 2nd 2017; Available online

How to Cite This Article: Haryanto, A., Cahyani, D., Triyono, S., Murdapa, F., and Haryono, D. (2017) Economic Benefit and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Potential of A Family-Scale Cowdung Anaerobic Biogas Digester. International Journal of Renewable Energy Development 6(1), 29-36.

Keywords: biogas; cowdung; greenhouse gas; economy; benefit

Article Metrics:

  1. An, B.X., Preston, T.R., & Dolberg, F. (1997) The introduction of low-cost polyethylene tube biodigesters on small scale farms in vietnam. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 11(1). (Accessed July 10, 2015).
  2. ASAE (American Society of Agricultural Engineers). (2003) Manure production and characteristics (ASAE D384.1 FEB03).
  3. Barnhart, S. (2014) From household decisions to global networks: biogas and the allure of carbon trading in Nepal. The Professional Geographer, 66(3): 345-353.
  4. Bird, L. & Sumner, J. (2014) Using renewable energy purchases to achieve institutional carbon goals: A review of current practices and considerations. NREL Report No. TP-6A20-49938. (April 14, 2014)
  5. BPS Lampung. (2013) Lampung in figures. Statistical Bureau of Lampung: 217
  6. Chen, Y., Hua, W., Feng, Y., & Sweeney, S. (2014) Status and prospects of rural biogas development in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 39: 679-685.
  7. Feng, Y., Guo, Y., Yang, Y., Qin, X., & Song, Z. (2014) Household biogas development in rural China: On policy support and other macro sustainable conditions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16: 679-685.
  8. Forte, A.J. (2011) A Glimpse into community and institutional biogas plants in Nepal. (Accessed July 7, 2015)
  9. Ghimire, P.C. (2013) SNV supported domestic biogas programmes in Asia and Africa. Renewable Energy, 49: 90-94.
  10. Guinée, J.B. (2004) Handbook on life cycle assessment: Operational guide to the ISO standards. New York. Kluwer Academic Publishers: 185.
  11. Hariyanto. (2012) Model pengembangan energi alternatif biogas di KPSP Setia Kawan (Model for biogas alternative energy development at KPSP Setia Kawan). Presentation at Workshop Coordination Biogas Rumah (BIRU) Program, Lampung, Oktober 23, 2012.
  12. Haryanto, A. & Triyono, S. (2011) Kinerja biogas skala rumah tangga. Prosiding Seminar BKS PTN Barat. (Performance of family size biogas digester. In Proceeding of BKS PTN Barat Seminar). Editors: Abrar A, Muslim G, Rosana E, Thirtawati, Oktarina S, Agustina H, Aryani D. Sriwijaya University, Palembang: 860-866.
  13. IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2006) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories – Volume 4: Agriculture, forestry and other land use. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan: 10.1-10.87
  14. Kabir, H., Palash, M.S., & Bauer, S. (2012) Appraisal of domestic biogas plants in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Economics, XXXV(1&2): 71-89.
  15. Kabir, H., Yegbemey, R.N., & Bauer, S. (2013) Factors determinant of biogas adoption in Bangladesh. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 28: 881-889.
  16. Kandpal, T.C., Bharati, J., & Sinha, C.S. (1991) Economics of family sized biogas plants in India. Energy Conversion & Management, 32: 101-113.
  17. Khan, U.K., Mainali, B., Martin, A., & Silveira, S. (2014) Techno-economic analysis of small scale biogas based polygeneration systems: Bangladesh case study. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 7: 68-78.
  18. Lie, A. (2009) Program konversi minyak tanah ke elpiji: Potret kebijakan pemerintah dalam sektor pengelolaan energi nasional (Kerosene-to-LPG conversion program: A portrait of government policy in national energy management sector). Presentation at Stadium General, Diponegoro University, Semarang. January 10, 2009.
  19. Manariotis, I.D., Grigoropoulos, S.G., & Hung, Y-T. (2010) Anaerobic treatment of low-strength wastewater by a biofilm reactor. In Environmental Bioengineering. Eds. Wang, L.K., Tay, J-H., Tay, ST-L., & Hung, Y-T. Humana Press, New York: 445-496.
  20. Nguyen, V.C.N. (2011) Small-scale anaerobic digesters in Vietnam – Development and challenges. Journal of Vietnamese Environment, 1(1): 12-18.
  21. Pathak, H., Jain, N., Bhatia, A., Mohanty, S., & Gupta, N. (2009) Global warming mitigation potential of biogas plants in India. Environment Monitoring Assessment, 157: 407-418.
  22. RISE-AT (Regional Information Service Centre for South East Asia on Appropriate Technology). (1998) Review of current status of anaerobic digestion technology for treatment of municipal solid waste. (Accessed July 10, 2015).
  23. Singh, K.J. & Sooch, S.S. (2004) Comparative study of economics of different models of family size biogas plants for state of Punjab, India. Energy Conversion & Management, 45: 1329-1341.
  24. Schmidt, T. S. & Dabur, S. (2014) Explaining the diffusion of biogas in India: a new functional approach considering national borders and technology transfer. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 16, 171-199.
  25. Suhedi, F. (2006) Keterkaitan aktivitas domestik dengan emisi CO2 (Relationship between domestic activities to CO2 emission). Presentation at Workshop “Alternatif Rancangan Permukiman Perkotaan Berdasarkan Emisi CO2” (Urban Planning Alternative Based on CO2 Emission). Bandung, March 21, 2006. In Bahasa Indonesia.
  26. Vorley, B., Porras, I., & Amrein, A. (2015) The Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme: can carbon financing promote sustainable agriculture? IIED (International Institute for Environment and Development) and Hivos. 80–86 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1X 8NH, UK: 10.
  27. Wright, L., Boundy, B., Badger, P.C., Perlack, B., & Davis, S. (2009) Biomass Energy Data Book. 2nd edition. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee: 189.
  28. Yadvika, S., Sreekrishnan, T.R., Kohil, S., & Rana, V. (2004) Enhancement of biogas production from solid substrates using different techniques: A review. Bioresource Technology, 95: 1-10.
  29. Yavini, T.D., Chia, A.I., & John, A. (2014) Evaluation of the effect of total solids concentration on biogas yields of agricultural wastes. International Research Journal of Environment Sciences, 3(2): 70-75.

  1. Effect of load on the performance of a family scale biogas-fuelled electricity generator
    A Haryanto, Tj G T Nindhia, W Rahmawati, U Hasanudin, T W Saputra, A B Santosa, Tamrin, S Triyono, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 355, pp. 012078, 2019. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/355/1/012078