JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING

AND
APPLIED SCIENCES

Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 13 (2018), 144-153

THE APPLICATION OF IMAGINEERING CONCEPT IN BIOGAS –TO –

ELECTRICITY GENERATION FOR DOMESTIC USES: NIGERIA
PERSPECTIVE
Mbachu, Victor M 1*, Igboanugo, Anthony C 2
1
Department of Production, University of Benin, Benin, Edo, Nigeria. [email protected]
2
Department of Production, University of Benin, Benin, Edo, Nigeria. [email protected]
*
Corresponding Author’s E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

There is shortage in electricity supply for household use, which has resulted to prevalent massive subscription to
fossil fuel powered electricity generating sets (of various capacities) otherwise known as generators. There exists the
need for an adaptable sustainable alternative energy sources to the fossil fuels. The paper presents an Imagineering
concept of running a holistic analysis of biogas to electricity conversion system to ascertain adaptability of biogas as
alternative fuel source for electricity generation in Nigeria. Backward integration was applied, determining the
electricity demand of household, the biogas need, and the capacity of the digester as well as the feedstock, to fulfill
this. A typical household in the urban or sub-urban cities in Nigeria; with daily consumption capacity of 20 KWh
per day to 30 KWh per day on 6 hours per day supply from the national grid, and 24 hours electricity need, was
found to have need of 239kg to 358kg of the organic matter per month and a 12m3 to 18m3 digester size. This shows
that the system with the current situation is not sustainable. The paper suggests various means of improving the
sustainability and adaptability of the system.

Keywords: Biogas Production, Energy Modelling, Biomass Biodegradation, Electricity Generation, System
Optimization

1. Introduction

Electricity can be generated by combusting gas generated from biodegradable organic matter, in a Spark Ignition
(S.I.) Engines. In developing nations (particularly Nigeria), public electricity supply for domestic use has remained a
big challenge, to the extent that most household must have standby generator(s), which they have to fuel at great
cost in order to have electricity that will meet their basic domestic need.

Thus the problem remains a twin in the main; raising enough money to sustain operating and maintenance cost,
because petroleum products are expensive, and having to deal with the issue of environmental hazard caused by the
use of this fuel. The environmental unfriendliness of fossil fuel calls for immediate replacement of fuel from this
source. The one way to address the challenge is to generate gas from bio-degradable waste such as cow dung;
animal droppings; kitchen waste; sewage sludge; energy – rich, non edible vegetables (e.g. water hyacinth) etc.

Waste to wealth conversion is one of the world’s acknowledged philosophies that are geared toward the
optimization of system’s productivity. This concept when adapted goes a long way in solving the national problem
of electricity, as well as serve as an efficient and economic waste management technique.

Admitted that various past research efforts have focussed on gas production using various types of biodegradable
organic waste as outlined above, but the issue has been that the innovative technology adopted had been a little
better than damp squibs. This therefore has created a yawning gap. The proposed research and development is meant
to bridge this gap (a desideratum).

JEAS ISSN: 1119-8109

 Mbachu Victor M. & Igboanugo, Anthony C. / Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 13 (2018), 1-10
145

The approach advocated is a systematic approach that involves backward integration to the design of the system and
sourcing of important waste that can generate copious gas supply and sustain the supply, such that the electricity
production will be sustainable just like the feedstock used for gas production is. To the best of the innovators’
knowledge, there is no complete supply system of such nature that is available in the market

Review of Related Work

With the rapid growth in population density all over the world, the yearning for energy for domestic, commercial
and industrial purpose is continually increasing. Based on the United Nation prediction of world population growth
to 9-10 billion people by 2040, it is obvious that copious production or conversion of various energy forms will be
required for effective and efficient production in various work systems. Baki (2004), as emphasized by Rabah et al
(2010) opined that civilization of any region of the world is predicated on the abundant availability of energy for
domestic, agricultural and industrial purposes.

Nwachukwu, Ezedinma and Jiburum (2014) compared the electricity consumption among Residential, Commercial
and Industrial Sectors of the Nigeria’s Economy using a 35 years period data (1970 to 2004). It was then revealed
that the residential sector has the highest mean electricity consumption (396.405 MW per hour) when compared with
the industrial and commercial sector of the economy. Also the consumption by the three sectors fell short of the
500MW per hour energy demand by each of the sectors. The 104 MW shortfalls are augmented by the standby
generators. Most of these are powered by either diesel or petrol (which is of fossil fuel origin).

The world fossil fuel reserve is continually depreciating. Its adverse effect on the wellbeing of the environment has
also been a matter of great concern. The UN Secretary-General on November 1st, 2011 presented the vision
statement as ―Sustainable Energy for All”. Hence, the urgent search for sustainable renewable alternative source of
energy was advertised, and biogas from waste organic biomass was enlisted among the alternative sources found.

Singh (2012) as cited by Olowoyeye (2013) defines biogas as a clean bio-fuel produced by micro-organism or
bacteria during anaerobic digestion of organic matter. Rajendran, Aslanzadeh and Taherzadeh (2012), noted that
biogas is a value-added product of anaerobic digestion of organic compounds. Basically, biogas is produced by
Anaerobic Digestion (AD) process, creating values from waste. Many organizations in the world have shown
significant interest in this technology. Alberta Innovates – Energy and Environment, are currently researching on
technologies that capture energy from bio-waste (biomass) and other values from these materials (Xiaomei 2014).

In recent past, optimization of biogas production has been pursued using various approaches; Change/ choice of
substrate (feed stock) Olowoyeye (2013); the use of co-substrate (feed stock) Oliveira, Alves and Costa (2014),
Manfred et al (2007); Feed pattern or/and rate, Manfred et al (2007); sustainability of agricultural supply of
biomass, Imdadul et al (2009); Pre-treatment of substrate (feed stock) Tumutegyereize et al (2011), and Montgomery
and Bochmann (2014); Improvement in heat utilization and/ or sub layer temperature, Elena et al (2015); Upgrading
from small scale digester to larger size; Transformation from on-site power supply biogas plant to bio methane plant
feed into the national grid i.e. economy of scale; and Optimization of the system parameters and operating
condition(e.g. temperature, pH, substrate concentration, Total Organic Carbon (TOC) content, optimum particle
size, Total Solids (TS), Total Volatile Solids (TVS));. (Premsunder et al (2015), Sajeena, Jose and Madhu (2014),
Rabah et al (2010), Wu, Bibeau and Gebremedhin. (2009), Abu Qdais, Bani Hani and Shatnawi (2009)). Wu,
Bibeau and Gebremedhin (2009), developed a simplified first-order kinetic model as part of an overall effort to
develop a three-dimensional numerical model that can link digester-process controls, fluid flow conditions and
anaerobic digestion for different digester designs, climatic conditions and manure compositions with respect to
C/C0.

Also in the bid to optimize the biogas production, Agnieszka et al (2013) highlighted the need to employ standards
measure for classification of biomass and assessing biodegradability of whatever is classified as biomass. The
improvement of microorganisms genetically was discovered also as an efficient means of degrading the plant
biomass. Enzymatic cocktails that can be introduced commercially was also developed. (eds. Anuj and Silvio ,
2013)

JEAS ISSN: 1119-8109

 Mbachu Victor M. & Igboanugo, Anthony C. / Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 13 (2018), 1-10
146

Corseuil and Weber Jr.(1994), Pe´rez et al (2002), Arutchelvi et al (2007), Katarzyna and Grażyna (2010),
Camarero, Martínez and Martínez (2013), Adam and Stephen (2014), Isikhuemhen et al (2014), have worked in the
area of efficient degradation of lignocellulosic biomass, with respect to understanding the various make up of the
plant cells, the improvement of the microorganism genetic makeup for better degradation of the biomass and
developing conducive situation/ environment for the process.

Biogas is a good substitute for firewood and cattle dung that can meet the energy needs of the rural population,
(Rajendran, Aslanzadeh and Taherzadeh 2012). The question is; what is its propensity to replace fossil fuel in
electricity generation? Martins das Neves, Converti and Vessoni Penna, (2009), as cited by Rajendran, Aslanzadeh
and Taherzadeh (2012) used International recommended Standards of testing to ascertain the energy content of
different fuel. The energy content of 1.0 m3 of purified biogas was found to be equal to 1.1 L of gasoline, 1.7 L of
bio ethanol, or 0.97 m3 of natural gas. This shows a great deal of difference in energy content, i.e. 1.0 m 3 of biogas is
equivalent to 1.1 L of gasoline. There is need for work on its production rate, economic analysis of the project, and
re-engineering of the production system with efficiency and cost reduction as the major factors.

Despite the huge potentialities and biomass resources for anaerobic digestion in Africa, Mulinda, Hu and Pan (2013)
noted that the dissemination rate of biogas in Africa is struggling to meet biogas market demand. Due to number of
challenges in the field which led to underestimation of the benefits of biogas technology, over reliance on wood and
fossil fuels has remain significantly overwhelming. Unreliable and inefficient use of biomass fuel, which contributes
to the greenhouse gas emissions still, was listed as the challenge.

Also, Patrick, Abdullahi and Bello (2013), among some other challenges facing the biogas production in Nigeria,
highlighted the issue of sustainability over a long period of time to meet industry requirements. This was also
highlighted by Marco (2011), in his dissertation on learning challenges in biogas production for sustainability -an
activity theoretical study of a network from a swine industry chain. Mshandete and Parawira (2009) in their review
of Biogas technology research in selected sub-Saharan African countries made a clarion call on African scientists to
carry out research in biogas technology to locally demonstrate the feasibility, application, and adaptation of this
technology, to help improve the quality of energy supply in their respective countries.

There exists a need to investigate these issues, to ascertain the root causes of the challenges and proffer viable
solution(s) to them, in order to enhance the adaptability of the technology in providing electricity – especially for
domestic uses.

2.0 Material and methods

The biomass to electricity system consist of three 3 main subsystem as shown in figure 1;

Biomass Biogas Electricity

Generation and Generation and Generation and
supply supply supply subsystem
subsystem subsystem

Figure 1: Schematic Representation of the Biomass – to – Electricity System

Backward integration method was applied to ascertain the interdependency of the entities or components of the
system (biomass to electricity conversion system). The identified entities were used to develop a Binary Interaction
Matrix (B.I.M.), which was further developed into dependency equations.

Given the electricity demand of the household, the amount of monthly supply from national grid and few other
variables as shown in table 1, the required bio-digester volume, expected gas consumption (m3/month), and quantity
of biomass needed for electricity generation in household were computed using the inputs. The factors, unit of
measurement, source of computation and the interrelationship equations developed were shown in table 2. The data
collected and analyzed, alongside with application of expert opinion technique, were employed in developing the
Binary Interaction Matrix (BIM) for the system.

JEAS ISSN: 1119-8109

 Mbachu Victor M. & Igboanugo, Anthony C. / Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 13 (2018), 1-10
147

Table 1: Identified Key Factors in Biomass to Electricity Generating System

Factor Description of Factor Factor Description of Factor

A monthly electricity consumption from K biogas calorific value
B national gridof supply from national grid
daily hours L biogas consumption rate
C desired daily hours of electricity supply M monthly biogas consumption for electricity supply (bridging
E energy consumption per hour O the gap) time
retention
F Actual household daily electricity demand P monthly demand of organic matter (biomass)
G Daily shortage (gap) of electricity supply Q Bio digester's organic matter capacity per volume
H Generator specification (power and R Required digester's size
I efficiency)
Generator efficiency S digesters' production cost per m3
J Biogas Combustion efficiency T digesters' total production cost

Table 2: Interdependency of the Systems’ Entity and the Derived Equations

Source for The

Entity Description of Entity Unit
computation interrelationship
equation
A monthly electricity consumption from national kwh/ month Electricity bill from
grid distribution companies
(DISCOs).
B daily hours of supply from national grid Hours/ day consumers' response
C desired daily hours of electricity supply Hours/ day consumers' response =(X% *24)
(Where x is the fraction of the hours of the day,
electricity supply is needed)
D number of days in a month days/ month Calendar Approx. to 30

E energy consumption per hour Kw A,B,D ={A/(B*D)}

F Actual household daily electricity demand kwh/day C,E ={C*E}
G Daily shortage (gap) of electricity supply kwh/day B,E,F ={F – (B*E)}
H Generator specification (power and efficiency) kw, % E >= E
I Generator efficiency % H
J Biogas Combustion efficiency % Literature and
experiment
K biogas calorific value kwh/m3 Literature : =6
Sasse (1988)
L biogas consumption rate m3/Kwh I,J,K =(I*J)/K
3
M monthly biogas consumption for electricity supply m /month D,G,L ={ D* G*L}
(bridging the gap)
N Biomass to biogas conversion rate m3/kgom literature and 0.036 to 0.092
experiment (winter to summer)
for cow dung
O retention time Days (months) literature and 25 to 35 days ≈ 1
experiment month
P monthly demand of organic matter (biomass) kgom/ month M,N ={M/N}

Q Bio digester's organic matter capacity per volume kgom/m3 literature 17 to 20

Sorathia, Rathod and
Sorathiya (2012)
R Required digester's size m3 O,P,Q =(O*P/Q}
S digesters' production cost per m3 Naira/ m3 literature and personal 20,000 to 25,000
computation
T digesters' total production cost Naira R, S ={R*S}

JEAS ISSN: 1119-8109

 Mbachu Victor M. & Igboanugo, Anthony C. / Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 13 (2018), 1-10
148

Factors A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T Total
A 0
B 0
C 0
D 0
E 1 1 1 3
F 1 1 2
G 1 1 1 3
H 1 1
I 1 1
J 0
K 0
L 1 1 1 3
M 1 1 1 3
N 0
O 0
P 1 1 2
Q 0
R 1 1 1 3
S 0
T 1 1 2
Total 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

Figure 2: Binary Interaction Matrix (B.I.M) for interrelationship between various entities (key players) of the
system.

3.0 Result and Analysis

The above relationships between the entities were programmed into the Microsoft Excel sheet to compute the
feedstock requirement per month and the digester size required for the various classes of electricity users and supply
scenarios. The estimate of the digester production cost could also be obtained by multiplying out the digesters’ size
in m3 and the unit production cost per m3 of the digester. This was done to ascertain the adaptability of the system to
household use in Nigeria. The result of the computation is shown in table 3a to 3c.

Table 3a: Required Digesters’ size and Organic waste requirement (cow dung in kg) for various scenarios (hours of
supply from national grid, daily electricity consumption rate, and 24hours/day demand of electricity)

hours of supply from national grid

daily electricity

8 hours 6 hours 4 hours 2 hours 0 hours

consumption
(KWh/day)

requireme

requireme

requireme

requireme

requireme
dung) (kg)

dung) (kg)

dung) (kg)

dung) (kg)

dung) (kg)
digesters

digesters

digesters

digesters

digesters
Organic

Organic

Organic

Organic

Organic
nt (cow
nt (cow

nt (cow

nt (cow

nt (cow
waste

waste

waste

waste

waste
(m3)

(m3)

(m3)

(m3)

(m3)
size

size

size

size

size

8 4.24 84.78 4.77 95.38 5.30 105.98 5.83 116.58 6.36 127.17
10 5.30 105.98 5.96 119.23 6.62 132.47 7.29 145.72 7.95 158.97
12 6.36 127.17 7.15 143.07 7.95 158.97 8.74 174.86 9.54 190.76
14 7.42 148.37 8.35 166.92 9.27 185.46 10.20 204.01 11.13 222.55
16 8.48 169.57 9.54 190.76 10.60 211.96 11.66 233.15 12.72 254.35
18 9.54 190.76 10.73 214.61 11.92 238.45 13.11 262.30 14.31 286.14
20 10.60 211.96 11.92 238.45 13.25 264.95 14.57 291.44 15.90 317.93
22 11.66 233.15 13.11 262.30 14.57 291.44 16.03 320.58 17.49 349.73
24 12.72 254.35 14.31 286.14 15.90 317.93 17.49 349.73 19.08 381.52
26 13.78 275.54 15.50 309.99 17.22 344.42 18.94 378.87 20.67 413.32
28 14.84 296.74 16.69 333.83 18.55 370.92 20.40 408.02 22.26 445.11
30 15.90 317.93 17.88 357.68 19.87 397.42 21.86 437.16 23.85 476.90

JEAS ISSN: 1119-8109

 Mbachu Victor M. & Igboanugo, Anthony C. / Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 13 (2018), 1-10
149

Table 3b: Required Digesters’ size and Organic waste requirement (cow dung in kg) for various scenarios (hours
of supply from national grid, daily electricity consumption rate, and 18hours/day demand of electricity)

Hours of Supply From National Grid

daily electricity
consumption

8 hours 6 hours 4 hours 2 hours 0 hours

(KWh/day)

digesters size
digesters size

digesters size

digesters size

digesters size
requirement

requirement

requirement

requirement

requirement
(cow dung)

(cow dung)

(cow dung)

(cow dung)

(cow dung)
Organic

Organic

Organic

Organic

Organic
waste

waste

waste

waste

waste
(m3)

(m3)

(m3)

(m3)

(m3)
(kg)

(kg)

(kg)

(kg)

(kg)
8 2.65 52.99 3.18 63.59 3.71 74.18 4.24 84.78 4.77 95.38
10 3.31 66.24 3.97 79.48 4.64 92.73 5.30 105.98 5.96 119.23
12 3.97 79.48 4.77 95.38 5.56 111.28 6.36 127.17 7.15 143.07
14 4.64 92.73 5.56 111.28 6.49 129.82 7.42 148.37 8.35 166.92
16 5.30 105.98 6.36 127.17 7.42 148.37 8.48 169.57 9.54 190.76
18 5.96 119.23 7.15 143.07 8.35 166.92 9.54 190.76 10.73 214.61
20 6.62 132.47 7.95 158.97 9.27 185.46 10.60 211.96 11.92 238.45
22 7.29 145.72 8.74 174.86 10.20 204.01 11.66 233.15 13.11 262.30
24 7.95 158.97 9.54 190.76 11.13 222.55 12.72 254.35 14.31 286.14
26 8.61 172.21 10.33 206.66 12.06 241.10 13.78 275.54 15.50 309.99
28 9.27 185.46 11.13 222.55 12.98 259.65 14.84 296.74 16.69 333.83
30 9.94 198.71 11.92 238.45 13.91 278.19 15.90 317.93 17.88 357.68

From the result presented in table 3a to 3c, it was observed that, the organic matter (in form of cow dung) required
for electricity generation, considering various consumption capacities, hours of demand and supply from national
grid, ranges from 21.20kg to 477kg per month.

Table 3c: Required Digesters’ size and Organic waste requirement (cow dung in kg) for various scenarios (hours of
supply from national grid, daily electricity consumption rate, and 12 hours/day demand of electricity)
Hours of Supply From National Grid
daily electricity

8 hours 6 hours 4 hours 2 hours 0 hours

consumption
(KWh/day)

digesters size

digesters size

digesters size

digesters size

digesters size
requirement

requirement

requirement

requirement

requirement
(cow dung)

(cow dung)

(cow dung)

(cow dung)

(cow dung)
Organic

Organic

Organic

Organic

Organic
waste

waste

waste

waste

waste
(m3)

(m3)

(m3)

(m3)

(m3)
(kg)

(kg)

(kg)

(kg)

(kg)

8 1.06 21.20 1.59 31.79 2.12 42.39 2.65 52.99 3.18 63.59
10 1.32 26.49 1.99 39.74 2.65 52.99 3.31 66.24 3.97 79.48
12 1.59 31.79 2.38 47.69 3.18 63.59 3.97 79.48 4.77 95.38
14 1.85 37.09 2.78 55.64 3.71 74.18 4.64 92.73 5.56 111.28
16 2.12 42.39 3.18 63.59 4.24 84.78 5.30 105.98 6.36 127.17
18 2.38 47.69 3.58 71.54 4.77 95.38 5.96 119.23 7.15 143.07
20 2.65 52.99 3.97 79.48 5.30 105.98 6.62 132.47 7.95 158.97
22 2.91 58.29 4.37 87.43 5.83 116.58 7.29 145.72 8.74 174.86
24 3.18 63.59 4.77 95.38 6.36 127.17 7.95 158.97 9.54 190.76
26 3.44 68.89 5.17 103.33 6.89 137.77 8.61 172.21 10.33 206.66
28 3.71 74.18 5.56 111.28 7.42 148.37 9.27 185.46 11.13 222.55
30 3.97 79.48 5.96 119.23 7.95 158.97 9.94 198.71 11.92 238.45

JEAS ISSN: 1119-8109

 Mbachu Victor M. & Igboanugo, Anthony C. / Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 13 (2018), 1-10
150

Considering the case of typical household in the urban or sub-urban cities in Nigeria; with daily consumption
capacity of 20 KWh to 30 KWh per day on 6 hours per day supply from the national grid, and 24 hours electricity
need, the organic matter need will fall within the range of 239 kg to 358 kg per month per household. This is pretty
large, and with the rate of generation of cow dung in the country, the system will not be sustainable. In places like
India, where cow dung is reported to be produced to the tune of 700 million tons per annum (Sorathia, Rathod and
Sorathiya, 2012), the system may be sustainable, but not in Nigeria.

Table 4: interdependency of the entities of the system

ENTITIES NO OF DEPENDANTS NO OF DEPENDENCY DEPENDANTS - DEPENDENCY CATEGORIZATION

A 1 0 1 Pure Input Factor
B 2 0 2 Pure Input Factor
C 1 0 1 Pure Input Factor
D 2 0 2 Pure Input Factor
E 3 3 0 Pure Intermediate Factor
F 1 2 -1 Partial Intermediate Factor
G 1 3 -2 Partial Intermediate Factor
H 1 1 0 Pure Intermediate Factor
I 1 1 0 Pure Intermediate Factor
J 1 0 1 Pure Input Factor
K 1 0 1 Pure Input Factor
L 1 3 -2 Partial Intermediate Factor
M 1 3 -2 Partial Intermediate Factor
N 1 0 1 Pure Input Factor
O 1 0 1 Pure Input Factor
P 1 2 -1 Partial Intermediate Factor
Q 1 0 1 Pure Input Factor
R 1 3 -2 Partial Intermediate Factor
S 1 0 1 Pure Input Factor
T 0 2 -2 Pure output Factor
More so, considering the size of the digester needed for the transformation of the biomass to gas, a 12m 3 to 18m3
digesters is quite large for each household to posses, in order to have a 24 hour per day supply of electricity instead
of the 6 hours per day supply from the national grid. A quick calculation of the production cost of the digester, by
multiplying the size by the unit production cost of #20,000 per m3 (with respect to underground fixed dome concrete
wall design) will discourage most household from subscribing to the system for alternative supply of electricity.

There exist a need for re-engineering of the system with respect to feedstock choice and its availability for
sustainable supply, design and construction of the digester. This will be aimed at improving gas production per
quantity of organic matter, reduction in size of digester as well as the production cost. This is the crux of the
ongoing PhD research work of the researchers, and new sets of feedstock (processed elephant grass and extract from
plantain stem) have been developed.

Table 4 was developed from the analysis of the binary interaction matrix. It shows the categories of the entities of
the system. Focus was directed to the pure input parameters as area of possible research and improvement. These
are:
1. An increase in A (monthly consumption from the national grid) and B (daily hours of supply from the national
grid) will yield a significant reduction in demand for supplementary electricity source, subsequently the biomass
demand and digester production and operating cost. But this factor is beyond the control of the users, thus it is
tagged uncontrollable. It is decreasing yearly due to some factors outside the scope of this work.
2. C, (a descriptive variable distinguishing various users with respect to hours of demand of electricity)
Although most household will wish to have electricity supply for 24 hours per day, but for some reasons, some
system may demand less than that. That is why 24, 18 and 12 were considered in the analysis.
3. Number of days (D) is virtually constant ranging from 28 to 31. Although in the analysis, 30 days was used.
4. Biogas combustion efficiency (J) could be accommodated in the design of the generators’ internal combustion
engine. This will improve the system performance

JEAS ISSN: 1119-8109

 Mbachu Victor M. & Igboanugo, Anthony C. / Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 13 (2018), 1-10
151

5. Biogas calorific value (K) is a function of the methane content, improvement on the purification system and use
of optimal temperature will improve the calorific value. This will improve the biogas to KWh conversion rate.
6. Biomass to biogas conversion rate (N) is a very important input factor that can be improved via; Digesters’
design, Choice of substrate (feedstock), Temperature, Availability and activity level of the microorganism, and
Retention time etc.
7. Retention time (O); is a controllable factor that need be modelled for optimum value.
8. Bio digesters’ organic matter capacity per m 3 could be increase based on the digesters’ design.
9. Production cost per m3 of digester is another controllable factor that can be improved based on the system’s
design, production process, and material selection for the construction.
Finally, the outlined input variables are potential area of research for improvement of biomass to electricity
conversion system.

5.0. Conclusion

The biomass to electricity conversion system was analyzed with the current prevalent situation, cow dung as
feedstock and other characteristics of the system, the organic matter demand and the digester size (using fixed dome
digester characteristics) were computed and analyzed with respect to sustainability. It was found that, there is need
for improvement in biomass to biogas conversion (digestion) subsystem through; productive selection of substrate
(feedstock) based on sustainability, redesign of the digester, determination of retention time for optimal output
(biogas or/and methane), and the use of digestion enhancing additives, among others.

References

1. Abu-Qdais H., Bani-Hani K.A. andShatnawi N. (2010) Modeling and optimization of biogas production from a
waste digester using artificial neural network and genetic algorithm. Resources Conservation and Recycling
54(6), P 359-363.
2. Adam B. F.and Stephen S F. (2014) Lignin biodegradation and industrial implications.AIMS
Bioengineering.[Online] 1(2). P. 92-112. Available from: www.aimspress.com>bioeng.2014.2.92 [Accessed: 13
September 2016].
3. Agnieszka G., Małgorzata M., Danuta C. and Magdalena S. (2013) Methods of Research to Assess
Biodegradability of Biomass Materials. CHEMIK. [Online] 67(10). P. 945–954. Available from:
www.chemikinternational.com [Accessed: 13 September 2016].
4. Anuj, K. C. and Silvio S.D. (eds.) (2013) Sustainable Degradation of Lignocellulosic Biomass - Techniques,
Applications and Commercialization.[Online] Croatia: InTech. Available from:
http://library.umac.mo/ebooks/b28045191.pdf [accessed: 24 June 2017]
5. Arutchelvi J., Sudhakar M., Arkatkar A., Doble M., Bhaduri S., andUppara P. V. (2007) Biodegradation of
Polyethylene and Polypropylene. Indian Journal of Biotechnology.[Online] 7(1). P. 9-22. Available from:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2450/5625e6d7b99dff9081815785ad5196defe5d.pdf[Accessed: 10 October
2017].
6. Camarero S., Martínez M. J. and Martínez A. T. (2013). Understanding lignin biodegradation for the improved
utilization of plant biomass in modern biorefineries. [Online] Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley and
Sons, Ltd. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com [accessed: 24 June 2017]
7. Corseuil H. X. and Weber Jr W. J. (1994) Potential Biomass Limitations on Rates of Degradation of Mono
Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Indigenous Microbes in Subsurface Soils. Wat. Res. [Online] 28(6), P. 1415-1423.
Available from: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/31568/0000495.pdf?...1[Accessed:
11th March 2017].
8. Elena C. R., Marco R., Paolo S., Marco S. and Vincenzo T. (2015) Modelling the Potential Biogas Productivity
Range from a MSW Landfill for Its Sustainable Exploitation.Sustainability. [Online]7(1). P.482- 495.
Available from: www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability [Accessed: 11th October 2016].
9. Imdadul H., Stelios R., Ewa G. and Leonidas K. (2009)Bio-energy production in the sugar industry: an
integrated modeling approach. A Paper prepared for presentation at the 113th EAAE Seminar ―A resilient
European food industry and food chain in a challenging world‖, Chania, Crete, Greece, date as in: September 3
- 6, 2009 [Online] Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46473223[Accessed: 15 October
2017]

JEAS ISSN: 1119-8109

 Mbachu Victor M. & Igboanugo, Anthony C. / Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 13 (2018), 1-10
152

10. Isikhuemhen, O.S., Mikiashvili, N.A., Senwo, Z.N. andOhimain, E.I. (2014) Biodegradation and Sugar Release
from Canola Plant Biomass by Selected White Rot Fungi. Advances in Biological Chemistry. [Online]4(1). P.
395-406. Available from: https://file.scirp.org/pdf/ABC_2014102413303327.pdf[Accessed: 10March 2016].
11. Karanja, G.M. andKiruiro, E.M. (2003) Biogas Production: A Technical Note. [Online] Nairobi Kenya: KARI
Technical Publications Unit. Available from:
www.kalro.org/fileadmin/publications/tech_notes/tecNote10.pdf[Accessed: 10 March 2016].
12. Katarzyna L. andGrażyna L. (2010)Polymer Biodegradation and Biodegradable Polymers – A Review. Polish J.
of Environ. Stud. [Online]19(2). P. 255-266 Available
from:http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.474.2451andrep=rep1andtype=pdf[Accessed:
11 October 2016]
13. Manfred L., Marc W., Markus S., Andreas G. and Harald H. (2007). Modelling the Energy Balance of an
Anaerobic Digester Fed with Cattle Manure and Renewable Energy Crops. Water Research[Online] 41. P.
4085–4096. Available from: http://ilbiogas.it/biogas-ricerche-e-studi/digestion-model-science-direct.pdf
[Accessed: 11 October 2016]
14. Marco A. P. Q. (2011) Learning Challenges In Biogas Production For Sustainability- An Activity Theoretical
Study Of A Network From A Swine Industry Chain. A Published Dissertation Submitted to Institute of
Behavioural Sciences Studies in Educational Sciences 240, University of Helsinki. Available from:
https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/27695/learning.pdf?sequence=3 [Accessed: 11 October 2016]
15. Montgomery L. F. R. andBochmann G. (2014) Pretreatment of Feedstock for Enhanced Biogas Production.
[Online] Britain: IEA Bioenergy.Available from:
https://www.nachhaltigwirtschaften.at/resources/iea_pdf/reports/iea_bioenergy_task37_study_pretreatment.pdf
[Accessed: 10 March 2016].
16. Mshandete A. M. andParawira W. (2009)Biogas technology research in selected sub-Saharan African countries
– A review. African Journal of Biotechnology[Online] 8 (2). P. 116-125. Available from:
www.academicjournals.org/journal/AJB/how-to-cite-article/53B4F1E5657[Accessed: 11 October 2016]
17. Mulinda C., Hu Q. and Pan K. (2013) Dissemination and Problems of African Biogas Technology. Energy and
Power Engineering. [Online]5(1). P. 506 - 512. Available from:
https://file.scirp.org/pdf/EPE_2013102410394221.pdf[accessed: 13 September 2016].
18. Nwachukwu M. U., Ezedinma N.F. andJiburum U. (2014) Comparative Analysis of Electricity Consumption
among Residential, Commercial and Industrial Sectors of the Nigeria’s Economy. Journal of Energy
Technologies and Policy [Online] 4(3). P. 7-12. Available from: www.iiste.org[accessed: 14 August 2017].
19. Oliveira, J. V., Alves M. M. and CostaJ. C. (2014) Optimization of biogas production from Sargassum sp. using
a design of experiments to assess the co-digestion with glycerol and waste frying oil. Bioresource
Technology[Online] 175. P.480–485 Available from:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3ac0/1f9e63041c7e0ccb1e9bf01c4d8b0fe7ef91.pdf[Accessed: 8 December
2016]
20. Olowoyeye J. (2013) Comparative Studies on Biogas Production Using Six Different Animal Dungs. Journal of
Energy Technologies and Policy [Online] 3(10). P.1–6 Available from:
www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JETP/article/download/8448/8413[Accessed: 24 October 2017]
21. Patrick S. O., Abdullahi Z. and Bello I. M.(2013)Biodisel Development in Nigeria: Prospects and
Challenges.International Journal of Modern Botany [Online] 3(1). P.4 – 9. Available from:
http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.ijmb.20130301.02.html [Accessed: 24 October 2017]
22. Pe´rez J., Mun˜oz-Dorado J., de la Rubia T. andMartı´nez J.(2002) Biodegradation And Biological Treatments
Of Cellulose, Hemicellulose And Lignin: An Overview. Int. Microbiol [Online] 5. P. 53 – 63. Available from:
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10123-002-0062-3.pdf[Accessed: 24 October 2017]
23. Premsunder G., Subhabrata D., Amit G., Kuntala D. and Pradip K. C. (2015)Optimization of Xylose Production
by Alkaline Hydrolysis of Water Hyacinth Biomass using Response Surface Methodology and Artificial Neural
Network. International Journal of Applied Biology and Pharmaceutical Technology. [Online] 6(3) P. 34-45.
Available from: http://imsear.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/168666 [Accessed: 8 December 2016]
24. Rabah, A.B., Baki, A.S., Hassan, L.G., Musa, M., and Ibrahim, A.D. (2010) Production of Biogas Using
Abattoir Waste at Different Retention Time. Science World Journal. [Online] 5(4) P. 23-26. Available from:
www.scienceworldjournal.org/article/download/8597/6065[Accessed: 8 December 2016]
25. Rajendran K., Aslanzadeh S. andTaherzadeh M. J. (2012) Household Biogas Digesters—A Review. Energies,
[Online] 5 P. 2911-2942. Available from: www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/5/8/2911[accessed: 24 June 2017]

JEAS ISSN: 1119-8109

 Mbachu Victor M. & Igboanugo, Anthony C. / Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 13 (2018), 1-10
153

26. Sajeena B.B, Jose P. P., and Madhu G. (2014), Optimization of Process Parameters Affecting Biogas
Production from Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste via Anaerobic Digestion. International Journal
ofEnvironmental, Chemical, Ecological, Geological and Geophysical Engineering (World Academy of Science,
Engineering and Technology) [Online] 8(1) P. 43-48 Available from: http://waset.org/publications/9997252/
[accessed: 24 June 2017]
27. Sorathia H. S., Rathod P. P., andSorathiya A. S. (2012). Bio-Gas Generation and Factors Affecting the Bio- Gas
Generation – A Review Study. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology [Online] 3(3). P. 72
-78. Available from: www.technicaljournalsonline.com[accessed: 14 October 2016].
28. Tumutegyereize P., Muranga F. I., Kawongolo J., andNabugoomu F. (2011) Optimization of biogas production
from banana peels: effect of particle size on methane yield. African Journal of Biotechnology. [Online] 10(79)
P. 18243-18251.Available from: http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB [accessed: 24 October 2017]
29. Wu, B., Bibeau E.L and Gebremedhin K.G. (2009) Three dimensional numerical simulation model of biogas
production for anaerobic digesters. Canadian Biosystems Engineering. [Online] 51(1)P. 8.1 - 8.7. Available
from: www.csbe-scgab.ca/docs/journal/51/c0807.pdf [accessed: 24 June 2017]
30. Xiaomei Li (2014) Technical Challenges For Biogas Production From Household Waste In Canada And
China. Technical paper presented at Biogas World 2014, Berlin, Germany. Available from:
www.biogasworld.de[accessed: 14 October 2016]

JEAS ISSN: 1119-8109