10.1007/s40095-022-00508-2

Economic analysis of biomass briquettes made from coconut shells, rattan waste, banana peels and sugarcane bagasse in households cooking

  • Bill Vaneck Bot*1,
  • Petros J. Axaopoulos2,
  • Olivier Thierry Sosso3,
  • Evangelos I. Sakellariou2,
  • Jean Gaston Tamba4,
  1. Laboratory of Energy, Materials, Modelling and Methods, Higher National Polytechnic School, University of Douala, Douala, 2701, CM Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of West Attica, Aegaleo, Athens, 12241, GR
  2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of West Attica, Aegaleo, Athens, 12241, GR
  3. Laboratory of Thermal and Environment, Advanced Teacher’s Training College for Technical Education, University of Douala-Cameroon, Douala, CM
  4. Department of Thermal and Energy Engineering, University Institute of Technology, University of Douala, Douala, 2701, CM

Published in Issue 2022-06-07

How to Cite

Bot, B. V., Axaopoulos, P. J., Sosso, O. T., Sakellariou, E. I., & Tamba, J. G. (2022). Economic analysis of biomass briquettes made from coconut shells, rattan waste, banana peels and sugarcane bagasse in households cooking. International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering, 14(2 (June 2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40095-022-00508-2
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Abstract The aim of this study is to analyse the economic viability of cooking biomass briquettes made from coconut shells, rattan waste, banana peels, and sugarcane bagasse by replacing conventional fuels such as fuelwood, charcoal and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG). The life cycle cost method and the sensitivity analysis based on a 10-year lifetime are applied to a typical Cameroonian household with an annual cooking energy requirement of 950 kWh. According to the results, briquettes made from coconut shells have the lowest life cycle cost (384.6€), while those made from banana peels have the highest cost (729.6€). The fuelwood replacement has the highest present value of net benefit. Among the three conventional fuels investigated, wood charcoal is the cheapest. Changes in the price of conventional fuels and the market discount rate affect the economic feasibility of biomass briquettes. With the exception of the banana peel briquettes, briquettes are more cost-effective than fuelwood, wood charcoal and Liquefied Petroleum Gas. Decision makers should consider ways to include massive household use of biomass briquettes in sustainable development because they could be a leading mover in sustainable development.

Keywords

  • Economic analysis,
  • Biomass briquettes,
  • Conventional fuels,
  • Life Cycle Cost,
  • Sensitivity analysis

References

  1. Halder et al. (2014) Assessment of biomass energy resources and related technologies practice in Bangladesh (pp. 444-460) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.071
  2. Wirba et al, “Renewable energy potentials in Cameroon : Prospects and challenges .,”
  3. Renwable Energy
  4. , 2016.
  5. E. Atyi
  6. et al.
  7. , “Étude de l’importance économique et sociale du secteur forestier et faunique au Cameroun: Rapport final,” 2013.
  8. WHO, “Indoor Air Pollution: Multiple Links between Household Energy and the MDGs,” 2011.
  9. Kpalo et al. (2020) A review of technical and economic aspects of biomass briquetting https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114609
  10. Mboumboue and Njomo (2016) Potential contribution of renewables to the improvement of living conditions of poor rural households in developing countries : Cameroon ’ s case study (pp. 266-279) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.04.003
  11. OMS, “la pollution de l’air à l’intérieur des habitations et la santé,” 2007.
  12. Bot et al. (2022) Assessment of biomass briquette energy potential from agricultural residues in Cameroon https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-02388-2
  13. McKendry (2002) Energy production from biomass (part 1): Overview of biomass 83(1) (pp. 37-46) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00118-3
  14. Ngusale et al. (2014) Briquette making in Kenya: Nairobi and peri-urban areas (pp. 749-759) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.206
  15. Bot et al. (2021) Preparation and characterization of biomass briquettes made from banana peels, sugarcane bagasse, coconut shells and rattan waste https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01762-w
  16. Lubwama and Yiga (2017) Development of groundnut shells and bagasse briquettes as sustainable fuel sources for domestic cooking applications in Uganda (pp. 532-542) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.04.041
  17. Sawadogo et al. (2018) Cleaner production in burkina faso: Case study of fuel briquettes made from cashew industry waste (pp. 1047-1056) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.261
  18. Kauter et al. (2003) Quantity and quality of harvestable biomass from Populus short rotation coppice for solid fuel use—a review of the physiological basis and management influences” (pp. 411-427) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00177-0
  19. Njenga (2014) Additional cooking fuel supply and reduced global warming potential from recycling charcoal dust into charcoal briquette in Kenya (pp. 81-88) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.002
  20. Guo (2020) Characteristics of biomass charcoal briquettes and pollutant emission reduction for sulfur and nitrogen during combustion https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117632
  21. Lubwama and Yiga (2018) Characteristics of briquettes developed from rice and coffee husks for domestic cooking applications in Uganda (pp. 43-55) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.11.003
  22. De Oliveira Maia et al. (2014) Production and characterization of fuel briquettes from banana leaves waste (pp. 439-444) https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1437074
  23. Gill et al. (2018) Influence of moisture content, particle size, and binder ratio on quality and economics of rice straw briquettes 11(1) (pp. 54-68) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-017-9877-9
  24. Srivastava et al. (2014) (2019) Investigating the energy use of vegetable market waste by briquetting (pp. 270-275) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.01.047
  25. Stolarski et al. (2013) Comparison of quality and production cost of briquettes made from agricultural and forest origin biomass (pp. 20-26) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.01.005
  26. Investir au Cameroun, “Bussiness in Cameroon,”
  27. www.investiraucameroun.com
  28. , 2021.
  29. Ishengoma and Igangula (2021) Determinants of household choice of cooking energy-mix in a peri-urban setting in Tanzania (pp. 25-35) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2021.09.004
  30. Tamba (2021) LPG consumption and economic growth, 1975–2016: evidence from Cameroon 15(1) (pp. 195-208) https://doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-01-2020-0005
  31. Obi et al. (2020) Energy performance of biomass cookstoves using fuel briquettes 11(4) (pp. 467-478) https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2017.1374769
  32. Kapen et al. (2021) Production and characterization of environmentally friendly charcoal briquettes obtained from agriculture waste: case of Cameroon” https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-021-03497-7
  33. Sakellariou et al. (2021) Energy and economic evaluation of a solar assisted ground source heat pump system for a north mediterranean city https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110640
  34. Sakellariou et al. (2021) Energy, economic and emission assessment of a solar assisted shallow earth borehole field heat pump system for domestic space heating in a north European climate https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2021.102159
  35. G. Tchatat, “Cameroun – Contribution a La Preparation Du Rapport National Pour La Formulation Du Livre Blanc Regional Sur L’Acces Universel Aux Services Energetiques Integrant Le Developpement Des Energies Renouvelables Et De L’Efficacite Energetique,”
  36. Cameroon
  37. , pp. 1–245, 2014, [Online]. Available:
  38. http://www.se4all.org/sites/default/files/Cameroon_RAGA_FR_Released.pdf
  39. .
  40. INS, “Annuaire statistique du Cameroun, Institut National de la Statistique,” 2008.
  41. INS, “Annuaire statistique du Cameroun, Institut National de la Statistique,” 2013.
  42. N. Schlag and F. Zuzarte, “Market Barriers to Clean Cooking Fuels in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Review of Literature,”
  43. Fuel
  44. , no. April, pp. 1–21, 2008, [Online]. Available:
  45. http://sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/market_barriers_clean_cooking_fuels_21april.pdf
  46. .
  47. INS, “Agriculture. Annuaire statistique. Chapitre 13,” 2017.
  48. Doggart (2020) The influence of energy policy on charcoal consumption in urban households in Tanzania (pp. 200-213) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2020.06.002
  49. Wiafe (2013) Fuel-wood usage assessment among rural households in Ghana https://doi.org/10.5261/2013.gen1.04
  50. Sana et al. (2020) Household energy choice for domestic cooking: distribution and factors influencing cooking fuel preference in Ouagadougou 27(15) (pp. 18902-18910) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08427-7
  51. Uhunamure et al. (2017) Driving forces for fuelwood use in households in the thulamela municipality, South Africa 28(1) (pp. 25-34) https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3051/2017/v28i1a1635