this is basically financial analysis of biogas plant in local mymensingh.

1. 1
Welcome to my presentation

2. Dept. of Farm Structure & Environmental Engineering
Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh
2
Presented by:
MASRUR AHMED
ID. No. 15FSEEJD-03M
Reg. No. 37789
Session: 2010-11
Supervisor
Prof. Dr. Md. Zainul Abedin
Co-Supervisor
Prof. Dr. Md. Abdur Rashid

3. STUDY TITLE
SUSTAINABILITY STUDY OF BIOGAS
PLANTS UNDER OPERATION IN LOCAL
MYMENSINGH.
3

4. Background
Objective
Methodology
Result
Conclusion
Outline of the study
4

5. Composition
Biogas originates from the
bio-degradation of organic
material contains 60-70%
methane and 30-40%
carbon dioxide.
Background
Feeding material
Biogas is produced from
livestock manure, sludge
and municipal, livestock and
organic waste.
Bio-slurry
Bio-slurry, as by-product
from biogas plant, is a
nutrient-rich organic
fertilizer having 20-30%
more nutrients than
ordinary organic
fertilizers.
Background of Biogas
5

6. Raw Materials
Bangladesh is a
favorable position in
respect of availability of
raw materials , due to
rapid expansion of
poultry and dairy
enterprises (5.6%
growth rate) .
Background
Efficiency
Only 40%-60% of
anticipated average gas
production is obtained,
whereas smaller plants
show better results than
bigger plants.
Size selection
Most cost-effective and
sustainable biogas plant
size selection is of
utmost important to
eliminate major
complication in biogas
plants due to under-
feeding and over-sizing.
Status of Biogas Plant
6

7. Sustainability
ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY
ECONOMICAL
SOCIAL
7

8. Research objectives
1. To identify the capacity of the plants commonly
used in local Mymensingh.
2. To analysis cost effectiveness and
sustainability of the plants under operation.
8

9. Methodology
General methodology followed during study
Study of secondary data & information
Sampling household biogas for study
Field testing of questionnaire
Finalization of questionnaire
Field investigation & data collection
Data analysis & Thesis report Preparation
Preparation of final report
9

10. Methodology (cont.)
I. Selection of Study Areas:
These areas were selected due to location,
availability of poultry farm, amount of cow dung
produced, shortage of fund and socio-economic
condition of the community. These areas are
1. Mymensingh sadar,
2. Haluaghat,
3. Phulpur
10

11. Methodology (cont.)
Map of Mymensingh Sadar
11

12. Methodology (cont.)
Map of Haluaghat
12

13. Methodology (cont.)
Map of Phulpur Upazilla 13

14. Methodology (cont.)
II. Sizes of biogas plants in the study area:
Five different sizes of biogas plant were installed
by Grameen Shakti (GS) in local Mymensingh.
The sizes of biogas plants are as follows:
• 1.6 m3
• 2.0 m3
• 2.4 m3
• 3.2 m3
• 4.8 m3
14

15. Methodology (cont.)
Field Testing
Once the survey
objectives, associated
data and analytical
design were specified
and questionnaire was
developed for field
testing.
III. Preparation of a Questionnaire
Final Questionnaire
After completion of field
testing final
questionnaire was
prepared to record the
information needed for
analysis.
15

16. Methodology (cont.)
Financial and economic appraisal of different domestic
biogas plants are based on decision making tools
including
1. Benefit cost ratio (BCR)
2. Net present value (NPV)
3. Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
16

17. Methodology (cont.)
Benefit cost ratio: It is the ratio of benefit
obtained from biogas plants to its cost.
𝐁𝐂𝐑 =
𝐏𝐕𝐛𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐭𝐬
𝐏𝐕𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬
Where:
PVbenefits = Present value of benefits
PVcosts = Present value of costs
17

18. Methodology (cont.)
Net Present Value (NPV): It is the difference
between the present value of cash inflows and the
present value of cash outflows.
𝐍𝐏𝐕 =
𝐭=𝟎
𝐧
(𝐁𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐭𝐬 − 𝐂𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬)𝐭
(𝟏 + 𝐫)𝐭
Where:
R = discount rate
t = year
n = analytic horizon (in years)
18

19. Methodology (cont.)
Internal rate of return (IRR): It is a discount rate
that makes the net present value (NPV) of all cash
flows from a particular project equal to zero.
𝐈𝐑𝐑 = 𝐫𝐚 +
𝐍𝐏𝐕𝐚
𝐍𝐏𝐕𝐚 − 𝐍𝐏𝐕𝐛
(𝐫𝐛 − 𝐫𝐚)
ra = lower discount rate chosen
rb = higher discount rate
chosen
Na = NPV at ra
Nb = NPV at rb
19

20. The existing condition of different components of biogas
plant was observed in detail during the field investigation
Methodology (cont.)
1. To assess the quality of construction
2. effectiveness of maintenance activities carried out
3. the operational status prior to categorizing them
Condition of biogas
20

21. in qualitative manner, dependent on the physical observation of the
plant made during field investigation.
Methodology (cont.)
Condition of biogas Plant
The existing physical status of different components of biogas plant
have been categorized in three different headings
1.Good (functioning without defects)
2. Fair (defective but functioning)
3. Poor (defective and not functioning)
21

22. The categorization has been made based upon the
condition of the following
 Condition of Plant as a whole
 Condition of Inlet
 Condition of Digester and Dome
 Condition of Outlet (displacement chamber):
 Condition of Main Gas Valve
 Condition of Pipeline
 Condition of Gas Stove
 Condition of Slurry Pit
Methodology (cont.)
22

23. Number of Plants surveyed
The field study was carried out in 36 randomly sampled biogas plants
from three selected upazillas in local Mymensingh region.
Locations No. of biogas plants in each size category
1.6 m3 2.0 m3 2.4 m3 3.2 m3 4.8 m3 Total Nos. of plants
Mymensingh
sadar
2 2 3 2 2 12
Haluaghat 3 2 2 3 2 12
Phulpur 2 3 3 2 2 12
Grand Total 7 7 8 7 6 36
RESULTS
23

24. 26000
32000
36000
43000
52000
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
1.6 2 2.4 3.2 4.8
CostinBDT
Different sizes of Biogas Plant (m3)
Initial investment cost
RESULTS (cont.)
24

25. 1.58
1.75
2.35
2.51
3.17
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1.6 2 2.4 3.2 4.8
GasProductioninCubicmeter
Plant Size in (m3)
Gas Production (m3)
RESULTS (cont.)
25

26. RESULTS (cont.)
Benefit cost ratio of biogas plants of different sizes:
1.51
1.62 1.68
1.53 1.47
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
1.6 2 2.4 3.2 4.8
BenefitCostRatio
Plant Size (m3)
B/C Ratio
B/C Ratio
26

27. RESULTS (cont.)
Internal rate of return of biogas plants of different sizes:
42.54
48.5
54.47
45.47 46.67
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1.6 m3 2.0 m3 2.4 m3 3.2 m3 4.8 m3
IRR(%)
Plant Size (m3)
Internal Rate of Return
27

28. RESULTS (cont.)
Net present value of biogas plants of different sizes:
16815
26005
32290
30725
32990
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
1.6 2 2.4 3.2 4.8
NetPresentValueinBDT
Plant Size in Cubic meter
Net Present Value
28

29. RESULTS (cont.)
General condition of biogas plant:
Plant Component
Plant under study different category
Good (functioning
without defects)
Fair (defective but
functioning)
Poor (defective
and not
satisfactorily
functioning)
Nos. % Nos. % Nos. %
1. Biogas Plant as a whole 2 6 28 78 6 16
2. Inlet tank 3 8 27 75 6 16
3. Digester and dome (gas
holder)
2 6 25 69 9 25
4. Outlet (displacement
chamber)
1 3 26 72 9 25
5. Pipeline 2 6 25 70 9 25
6. Main gas valve 1 3 27 75 8 21
7. Gas stove 2 6 28 78 6 16
8. Slurry pit 1 3 2 6 33 91
29

30. RESULTS (cont.)
General condition of biogas plant:
2 3 2 1 2 1 2 1
28 27 25 26 25 27 28
22
6 6
9 9 8 6
33
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
No.ofplant
Component
Good (functioning
without defects)
Fair (defective but
functioning)
Poor (defective and
not functioning)
30

31. RESULTS
Relationship between Training Received and Functional Status of Plant
Type of Training Received
Functional Status of Plant (No of Plants)
Not
Functioning
Partly
Functioning
Functioning
Satisfactorily
Total
1. No training received 1 2 2 5
2. Training not provided but
leaflet/booklet/manual provided
2 0 5 7
3. One day orientation training provided by
service provider
0 1 1 2
4. Short term O & M training (7days or less) 0 0 1 1
5. Long term O & M training (more than 7 days) 0 1 1 2
6. On the spot instructions from mason/company
supervisors etc.
4 8 6 18
7. Training provided by other NGOs (not the
service provider)
0 0 1 1
Total 7 12 17 3631

32. RESULTS (cont.)
Relationship between Quantity of Feeding and Functional Status of
Biogas Plants
Quantity of
Feeding Received
(% of prescribed
quantity)
Functional Status of Plant (No of Plants)
Not
Functioning
Satisfactorily
Partly
Functioning
Functioning
Satisfactorily
Total
1. Less than 25% 3 2 2 7
2. <25% but >50% 2 5 1 8
3. <50% but >75% 1 2 4 7
4. <75% but >100% 1 2 6 9
5. More than 100% 0 1 5 6
Total 7 12 17 36
32

33. RESULTS (cont.)
Relationship between Quantity of Feeding and Functional Status of
Biogas Plants
3
2
1 1
0
2
5
2 2
1
2
1
4
6
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
> 25% 25%-50% 50%-75% 75%-100% < 100%
No.ofbiogasplant
Quantity of feeding type in Percentage
Not Satisfactorily
Functioning
Partly
Functioning
Functioning
Satisfactorily
33

34. RESULTS (cont.)
Relationship between User’s Satisfaction and Plant Efficiency
Efficiency of Plant
Users’ Level of Satisfaction
Not
Satisfied
Partly satisfied Satisfied Total
Nil (No gas
production)
0 0 0 0
1. Less than 20% 3 1 1 5
2. >20% but < 40% 2 4 6 12
3. >40% but < 60% 1 6 4 11
4. >60% but < 80% 0 1 3 4
5. >80% but < 100% 0 0 3 3
6. More than 100% 0 0 1 1
Total 6 12 18 36
34

35. RESULTS (cont.)
Relationship between User’s Satisfaction and Plant Efficiency
3
2
1
0 0 0
1
4
6
1
0 0
1
6
4
3 3
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
<20% 20%-40% 40%-60% 60%-80% 80%-100% >100%
No.ofbiogasplant
Efficiency type
Not Satisfied Partly satisfied Satisfied
35

36. RESULTS (cont.)
17%
33%
50%
Users’ Level of Satisfaction
Not Satisfied Partly satisfied Satisfied
36

37. CONCLUSIONS
Condition of Biogas Plant
Out of 36 plants under study,
18 plants were functioning at full
capacity,
12 were functioning partly and the
remaining
6 plants were not functioning
satisfactorily.
Financial Analysis
All the five sizes are sustainable
as well as cost effective but 2.4
m3 plant is most cost effective
and sustainable with highest B/C
ratio, IRR and NPV is slightly
less than 4.2 m3 plant size.
37

38. CONCLUSIONS
Cost Effectiveness & Sustainability
The cost effectiveness of the biogas plants would suggest
the farmers to adopt the biogas technology specially 2.4m3
both for cooking and use bio-slurry for crops, and ultimately
relief the huge dependency on firewood and chemical
fertilizer and thus the technology would be a sustainable one
contributing to national economy.
38

39. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
 Ministry of Science and Technology for their special grants to conduct
this research.
 Grameen shakti, Phulpur for providing necessary information.
 Rural development Academy, Bogra for providing necessary
information for completion of this research work.
 Department of Farm Structure and Environmental Engineering for
providing me with all the necessary supports for the successful
completion of this research work.
39

40. 40