UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK

Faculty of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics

MSc of Environmental and Resource Management

Socio-Economic Analysis of Households Energy Interventions -A case study of Northern Uganda

Achora Proscovia. O. Mamur

12/10/1986

Supervisors: Associate Professor Jens Bo Holm Nielsen-Aalborg University, Department

of Energy Technology, Head of centre for Bioenergy and Green Engineering.

Associate Professor Lars Ravn- Jonsen-Syddansk Universitet, Department of

Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics, Vice head of Education

NUMBER OF CHARACTERS:138,277

A Thesis Report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Environmental
and Resource Management.
DECLARATION

I, Achora Proscovia O M, hereby declare an oath that this master’s thesis is a presentation of my
original research work and that it has not been submitted anywhere for any award. Wherever
external contribution and other sources were implied, every attempt was made to emphasize this
clearly by indicating references to the literature.

Date 1/06/2018 signature

JUNE 2018
ABSTRACT
Lack of access to clean and reliable energy is a major challenge to most developing countries and
Uganda where biomass is the primary source of domestic energy, the decision to introduce new
technologies is often faced by low adoption rates. Moreover, the necessary data required for
effective decision is often inadequate and lacking hence a barrier to the planning process.

This study aims to create awareness and introduce small scale modern biomass technologies,
solar cookers, and small-scale PV Solar systems to meet the energy needs of households in
Northern Uganda. 90% of the population rely on solid biofuel for cooking and paraffin for light
with majority using traditional technologies which has a range of health impacts due to indoor
air pollution, deforestation due to unsustainable harvest of forest resources. Moreover, women
and children spend substantial hours collecting firewood which keep them away from engaging
in other activities and exposes them to danger of being attacked while in the woods.

The study focuses on an assessment of biomass resources and conversion routes with broad
areas of energy crops, agricultural crops residues, forest product residues, and animal wastes
with the aim to find alternative sources of fuel to meet primary energy needs of the people of
Northern Uganda. The availability of these resources together with brief description of possible
conversion routes for biomass, sustainability measures and current research and development
activities in Uganda.

The study also made assessment of solar resources with emphasis on solar cookers and small-
scale PV Solar systems as alternative to reduce the reliance on unsustainable and dirty energy
technologies. With huge solar and biomass resources in Uganda, its conclusive that modern
bioenergy and solar energy can be the solutions to lack of clean, available, sustainable, and
modern energy solutions to households.

The study covered the socio-economic impacts of the technologies on the people of Northern
Uganda, with emphasis on the CBA analysis frame basing on the WHO guidelines for
household’s energy intervention, the benefits associated with energy interventions for example
(i) health benefit, (ii)fuel saving, (iii) time saving for women, (iv)reduction in greenhouse gases
of carbon and methane and (v) conservation of the forest resources were identified. The DIPSR
framework was used to gain an insight into energy problems facing the people of northern
Uganda and especially the impact on forest resources and to find solutions that can be best used
more especially solutions that will use the available local resources without putting pressure on
the forest resources.

The study also identified factors that could be a barrier towards the adoption of these
technologies for example (i) socio-economic,(ii) technical,(iii) financial,(iv) institutional among
others and possible solutions was recommended like (i) subsidy led programs should be
implemented to stimulate the use of clean energy technologies,(ii) creation of awareness on the
importance and benefits to switch to clean energy (iii)provision of low interest loan and donor
funded projects to the people of Northern Uganda so that they have access to sustainable energy.

KEY WORDS
Modern biomass technologies, small scale renewable energy, Cost, and benefit analysis
framework, DPISR framework, Uganda`s energy sector, Solar technology.

JUNE 2018
Acknowledgement
Firstly, I would like to thank the almighty God for his abundance blessings upon
my life and seeing through with my studies.
I would like to extend my appreciations to the following persons who have in
various ways contributed towards the success of my studies.

I am very grateful to my thesis supervisors Associate Professor Jens Bo Holm

Nielsen-Aalborg University, Department of Energy Technology, Head of Centre
for Bioenergy and Green Engineering and Associate Professor Lars Ravn-Jonsen-
University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and
Business Economics, Vice Head of Education.

My family and parents especially my husband Ayoi Kenedy, my daughters Laura

and Merilyn and my mother are the recipients of my heartfelt gratitude for the
continuous devotion during the entire period of studies. Their continued support
constitutes the basis of my success.

Thank you to my friends especially Aloysious, Bernard and Samuel who have
been there continuously for me and to everyone who contributed to my
progress during my studies.
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
1.1. Overview of Uganda´s Energy sector .................................................................... 3
1.2. Overview of Uganda´s Energy sector projection 2030……………………….6
1.3. Biomass Distribution in Uganda………………………………………………....8
1.4 Overview of the study area-Northern Uganda ................................................. 10

1.5. Problem statement and justification………………………………………….....10

1.6. Research question and sub-questions…………………………………………..11
1.7. Scope of the study…………………………………………………………………12
1.8 Relevance of the study ........................................................................................... 12

1.9. Organisation of the thesis ..................................................................................... .13

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………...14
2.1 Small scale renewable energy technologies considered in the stud ................. 14
2.1.1 Bio-oil……………………………………………………………………………..14
2.1.2 Bio-oil in Uganda………………………………………………………………...16
2.1.3 Bio-oil extraction………………………………………………………………....18
2.1.3.1 Mechanical Extraction………………………………………………………....18
2.1.3.2 Batch oil presses.……………………………………………………………….18
2.1.3.3. Expellers for jatropha seeds ............................................................................ 19

2.1.4 Characteristics of bio-oil....................................................................................... 19

2.1.5 Concerns related to liquid biofuel development in developing

countries(Bio-oil)
…………………………………………………...………………………………………20
2.1.2 Bio-pellets………………………………………………………………………...21
2.1.2.1 Benefits of bio-pellets......................................................................................... 23
2.1.3 Bio-briquettes......................................................................................................... 24
2.1.3.1 Types of bio-briquettes ...................................................................................... 25
2.1.3.1.1 Non-carbonized briquettes………………………………………………...25
2.1.3.1.2 Carbonized briquettes……………………………………………………...26
2.1.3.1 Bio-briquettes production ................................................................................. 26
2.2. Small scale/family size biogas technology........................................................... 27
2.2.1 Methane gas yield ................................................................................................. 28
2.2.3. Bio-gas production process................................................................................. 28
2.2.4 Biogas technology in Uganda.............................................................................. 30
2.2.5. Family size biogas plant design in Uganda ..................................................... 31

2.2.6. Dissemination of family size biogas plant. ....................................................... 32

2.2.7 Roles of biogas (Anaerobic digestion) ................................................................ 33
2.3. Solar cookers /Solar cooking technologies........................................................... 34
2.3.1 Types of solar cookers .......................................................................................... 35
2.3.2 Solar cooking in Uganda ...................................................................................... 35
2.3.3 Pros and cons to solar cooking technologies. .................................................... 36
2.4 Small scale /mini PV solar systems........................................................................ 38
2.4.1 Photovoltaics.......................................................................................................... 39
2.4.2 PV solar in Uganda ............................................................................................... 39
2.4.3 PV Solar potential in Uganda .............................................................................. 40
2.4.4 Mini-grid systems ................................................................................................. 41
2.4.5 Solar home systems .............................................................................................. 41
2.5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 42
CHAPTER 3: METHOD AND METHODOLOGY……………………………..…45
3.1 Research Design……………………………………………………..………….....46
3.2. Instruments and procedure of data collection………………………………..46
3.2.1 Questionnaire Administration……………………………………………….....46
3.2.2 Participant Observation………………………………………………………...47
3.3 Methods of data analysis………………………………………………………...47
3.4Challenges/Limitation…………………………………………………………….47
3.5 Ethical consideration ............................................................................................... 48
CHAPTER 4: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK……………………………………49
4.1. The Driver Pressure State Impact Response (DPSIR) Framework…………..49
4.2 Cost- Benefit Analysis Framework (CBA)………………………………………52
4.2.1. General assumptions…………………………………………………………...54
4.2.1.1. Avoided fuel cost and reduced firewood collection time………………..54
4.2.1.2 Benefits due to better health…………………………………………………55
4.2.1.3 Benefits due to greenhouse gas emissions reduction……………………...56
4.2.1.4 Benefits due to preservation of the district forest resources……………56
4.3.1 Alternative approach to CBA .............................................................................. 57
CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS AND RESULT OF CBA ................................................. 58
5.1 Benefits…………………………………………………………………………….58
5.1.1 Fuel cost and time saved………………………………………………………58
5.1.2 Benefits on reduced cooking time…………………………………………….59
5.1.3 Benefits due to preservation of the district forest resources…………….59
5.4 Health Benefit……………………………………………………………………..60
5.2.4 Green House Gases emission saved from energy intervention………….60
5.3 The scope of CBA…………………………………………………………………61
5.3.1 Time horizon…………………………………………………………………….61
5.3.3 Costs of intervention of alternative technologies…………………….…….62
5.3.4 Results from NPV and IRR calculation………………………………………62
5.3.5 Conclusions………………………………………………………………………62
CHAPTER 6: ANALYSIS AND RESULT OF FIELD STUDY............................... 64

6.1 Discussion of descriptive statistics of the survey results…………………....64

6.1.1 Gender of the respondents…………………………………………………….64
6.1.2 Household size…………………………………………………………………..65
6.1.3 Income status of the households ........................................................................ 65

6.1.4 Household energy consumption (cooking and light)………………………67

6.1.4 Challenges faced by households due to the use of solid biomass………..70
6.1.5 Willingness to switch to affordable, clean, and modern energy
technologies……………………………………………………………………………71
6.1.6 Level of awareness………………………………………………………………72
6.1.7 Household opinions on production of modern energy technologies……74
6.1.8 Medium of information………………………………………………………...75
6.1.9 Promotion that can enable people to the purchase of modern source of
energy…………………………………………………………………………………...76
6.1.10 Sources of fund for investment towards modern renewable energy by
households in Northern Uganda…………………………….………………….......76
6.1.11 Benefits of modern energy technologies to households……………….…77
6.1.12 Conclusions from field findings…………………..…………………………78
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS .......................... 79

7.1 Summary of the main findings and conclusions ................................................. 79

7.2 Recommendations and Policy implications………………………..………….80
7.3Future Research………………………... ………………………..………….……..81
CHAPTER 8: BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………...82
CHAPTER 9: APPENDICES ..................................................................................... 104
LISTS OF FIGURES

Figure 1:Energy use by category in Uganda ................................................................ 6

Figure 2:Map of Uganda showing Biomass distribution .. ........................................ 9
Figure 3:The batch Cottage level oil expeller ............................................................. 18
Figure 4:Oil extraction using Jatropha seeds expeller. ............................................. 19
Figure 5:Fixed dome digester CAMARTEC Model. ................................................. 32
Figure 6:Solar cooker technologies Source. ............................................................... 35
Figure 7:Household size ............................................................................................... 65
Figure 8:Households monthly income ........................................................................ 67
Figure 9:Challenges faced by households due to the use of solid biomass ........... 70
Figure 10:Willingness to switch to affordable, clean, and modern energy
technologies. ................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 11:Households’ opinion on production of modern energy technologies, 73
Figure 12:Medium of information ............................................................................... 75
Figure 13:Types of promotions that can enable people to purchase modern energy
technologies .................................................................................................................... 76
Figure 14:Benefits due to adoption of modern energy technologies ..................... 77
Figure 15:Names of government sectors and institutions involved in the
promotion of modern and clean renewable energy technologies in Uganda ..... 104
Figure 16: Biomass classification................................................................................ 105
Figure 17:Biomass conversion technologies ............................................................. 106
Figure 18:Small scale bio-oil extraction equipment. ............................................... 107
Figure 19:Level of use for energy conversion technologies ................................... 108
Figure 20:Biomass densification................................................................................. 109
Figure 21:Properties of densified biomass................................................................ 110
Figure 22:Aerobic digestion ........................................................................................ 111
Figure 23Explains the Components of total cost influencing the fuel preference of
a household and total benefit influencing the fuel preference of a household:. 112
Figure 24:Total benefit influencing the fuel preference of a household ............... 113
Figure 25:Classification and summary of the factors constituting the hierarchical
map of (A) total cost and (B) total benefit................................................................. 114
Fair Data Research.xlsx
LISTS OF TABLES
Table 1:Pros and Cons of modern biomass, solar cookers, and small-scale PV solar
technologies. ................................................................................................................... 43
Table 2:The distribution of sample size of households in the study area. ............. 47
Table 3:Description of elements considered in the DPSIR framework .................. 50
Table 4:Elements considered in the CBA .................................................................... 54
Table 5:Fuel wood and charcoal saving from alternative sources of clean
technologies .................................................................................................................... 58
Table 6:Economic benefits for fuelwood saved ......................................................... 59
Table 7:Total annual cooking time saved and corresponding economic benefits 59
Table 8:Total annual benefit due to preservation of district forest ......................... 60
Table 9:Total annual time saved due to health and corresponding economic
benefits............................................................................................................................. 60
Table 10:Total annual CO2 and CH4 emission saved ............................................... 61
Table 11:Summary of economic benefits considered in the CBA............................ 61
Table 12:Cost of intervention for biogas and solar cooker ....................................... 62
Table 13:Result of NPV and IRR .................................................................................. 62
Table 14:Demographic characteristics of respondents ............................................. 64
Table 15:Income status of the households based on location .................................. 66
Table 16:Clustered frequencies of the different sources of energy use for cooking
in the selected households ............................................................................................ 67
Table 17:Clustered frequencies of the different sources of energy use for lighting
in the selected households ............................................................................................ 68
Table 18:Challenges faced by users of solid fuel in Northern Uganda .................. 69
Table 19:Willingness to switch to affordable, clean, and modern energy
technologies .................................................................................................................... 71
Table 20:Level of awareness of the population .......................................................... 72
Table 21:Households’ opinion on production of modern energy technologies .... 73
Table 22:Sources of fund for investment towards modern renewable energy by
households in Northern Uganda ................................................................................. 76
Table 23:Benefits of modern energy technologies to households ........................... 77
ACCRONYMS AND ABBREVIATION
ABPP: African Biogas Partnership Program

CARMATEC: Centre for Agricultural Mechanisation and Rural Technology

CBA: Cost and Benefit Analysis
CMS: Church Missionary Society
DPISR: Driver Pressure Impact State Response
ERT: Energy for Rural Transformation
FAO: Food and Agriculture Organisation
GDP: Gross Domestic Products
MDGS: Millennium Development Goals
MEMD: Ministry of Environment and Mineral Development
NARO: National Agricultural Research Organisation
NEMA: National Environment Authority
NGOs: Non-Governmental Organisations
NPA: National Planning Authority
PREEP: The Rural Electrification Strategy and Plan and the Promotion of
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program
PVTMA: Solar PV Targeted Marketing Approach
SCA: Solar Cooker Association
SE4ALL-AA: Sustainable Energy for All Action Agenda
UBOS: Uganda Bureau of Statistics
UNDESA: United Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs
UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme
UNFCCC: United Nations Framework for Climate Change
UNSDGS: United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
UN-SE4ALL: United Nations Sustainable Energy for All
URA: Uganda Revenue Authority
WHO: World Health Organisation
Exchange rate: 1 EURO =4484 USHS (Uganda shillings)
This page was left blank by the author
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Access to modern, clean and sustainable renewable energy is essential in achieving several
public, national, and international goals: going from the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015)
to at least 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs, 2015), especially goals 3, 5, 7
and 13, respectively ‘ensuring healthy lives and promoting wellbeing for all at all ages’;
‘gender equality’; ‘energy access for all’ and ‘climate action.(Zaccai, 2017 ;UNEP, 2018,)

However, globally about 2.7 billion people (40% of worldwide) lack access to clean energy
and majorly depend on traditional cooking methods based on the use of solid biomass. (IEA,
2016; Bildirici & Özaksoy, 2016) and very often using technologies which are less fuel efficient
and has a range of health damaging pollutants such as fine particles and carbon monoxide.
(Ali, Law, Yusop, & Chin, 2017; Singh, Wang, Mendoza, & Ackom, 2015). According to, Kofi-
Opata, (2016) traditional biomass accounts for 49% of total energy consumed in Africa and
80% in sub-Saharan Africa and in Uganda 90% of total energy requirement comes from
biomass. (Ali, Law, Yusop, & Chin, 2017).

According to WHO (2018), an estimated 4.3 million people die annually from exposure to
indoor air pollution. And in Africa 600,000 premature deaths are attributed to indoor air
pollution. (Ali, Law, Yusop, & Chin, 2017). In Uganda alone, an estimated 23,000 premature
deaths are attributed to indoor pollutions mainly affecting women and children. (Vaccari,
Vitali, & Tudor, 2017). By having access to modern energy services globally about 800,000
children’s lives are saved yearly from exposure to indoor smoke. (WHO, 2018).

Moreover, women and children spent substantial time spent collecting fuelwood which
exposes them to danger of being attacked and killed. And besides time spent collecting
firewood could be used by women in engaging in productive activities and children
attending education hence improving their quality of life. (Harris, Collinson, & Wittenberg,
2017).

K.V. Ramani once quoted that “The extent of physical hardship imposed on poor women in
acquiring and using energy for the most basic survival needs is an enslavement that denies them vital
opportunities to escape their state of deprivation”. (K.V. Ramani, Energy as an Instrument of
Women’s Economic Empowerment, 2002)

Over reliance on solid biomass to provide energy in developing countries has contributed
to environmental degradation and pressure on forest resources (Singh, Wang, Mendoza, &

1
Ackom, 2015). Biomass exploitation in Africa raises concern about its ability to sustain the
growing demand which is expected to increase by 27% in the 2030. (from 583 million tons
to 823 million tons). (Energy for All, 2011; power for all, 2017). Energy consumption in
Africa is very low compared to world average it accounts for only 4% of the global energy
demand despite being home to 13% of the global population (Harris et al., 2017).

In Uganda, traditional biomass is the most important source of domestic energy

contributing 90% of energy generation. (export.gov, 2017) mainly used for cooking (Lee,
2013). There is low rate of grid connection, electricity only contributes to 1.7 % of the
national energy demand and oil products account for 9.7% which is mainly used for
vehicles and thermal power plants. (Energy for All, 2011)

The UN secretary General in 2011 launched sustainable energy for all. 1(SE4ALL)
programme with the aim to encourage governments and stakeholders in every country
most especially developing countries to take the responsibility to ensure that there is
universal access to modern energy services by 2030. (UN, 2018). And these goals are built
upon 17 UN Sustainable goals and UN Millennium Development Goals 2015. (MDGs).2
(UNEP, 2018).

As United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has stated, “energy is the golden thread
that connects economic growth, increased social equity, and an environment that allows the planet
to thrive”. (Sustainable Energy for All, 2011)

In this perspective, the government of Uganda in 2015 embraced and developed an

Action Agenda SE4ALL AA in line with the United Nation goals for sustainable energy
for all. (UN-SE4ALL-Vision, 2011). The goals outline milestones through 2030 for
building the three main energy pillars of sustainable development: energy access,

1
SE4ALL is a United Nation Development Programme set out in 2011 with main objectives of “1)
ensure universal access to modern energy services,2) double global rate of improvement in energy
efficiency and 3) double the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix”

2
MDGs is the United Nations Millennium declaration signed in September 2000 commits world
leaders to combat poverty and hunger, achieve universal primary education, promote gender
equality, and empower women, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat
HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases, ensure environmental sustainability and to develop a
global partnership for development. (UN, 2018)

2
energy efficiency, and renewable energy. The government of Uganda together with
non-governmental organisations(NGOs) and several other agencies are working
together towards achieving these set quantitative objectives. (Okello, Pindozzi, Faugno,
& Boccia, 2013). A detailed list of organizations involves in programs for promoting
improved and clean energy technologies in Uganda is found in (appendix A)

Due to the need to provide clean and sustainable energy, control environmental
degradation and fight climate change, the government of Uganda has set many
programs and established ministries responsible to oversee those programs and they
include SE4ALL AA, National Biomass Energy Strategy of 2005-2010, Renewable
Energy Policy for Uganda 2007-2017, Uganda Vision 2040, to Rural Electrification
among others.

1.1. Overview of Uganda´s Energy sector

Uganda is a landlocked country located in East Africa between latitudes 011300S and
41000N; and longitudes 291300E and 351000E with an area of 241,038 square kilometres.
Its bordered by Kenya in the East, Tanzania and Rwanda in the south, Democratic
Republic of Congo in the west and South Sudan in the north.Map of Uganda is in figure
2.

In 2016, Uganda’s population was estimated at 41,940,000 with an annual growth rate
of 3.4% with 81.6% rural population and a GDP of US$547. (Uganda Bureau of Statistics,
2017). Uganda is the second most populous and poorest landlocked country in the
world with 37.7% of the population living below the international poverty line US$1.25
a day. (World Bank 2018)

Uganda is heavily endowed with different energy resources including hydro,

geothermal, biomass, wind, solar and fossil fuel (petroleum), however these
resources are not fully utilised. (Peter N. Walekhwa, Mugisha, & Drake, 2009).
With diverse endowment of energy resources, Uganda has the lowest per capita
energy consumption in the world with 215 KW per capita per year compared to
Sub-Saharan Africa average 552KW and the rest of the world average of 2,952KW
(World Bank Report,2017; Lee, 2013). The energy deficit is attributed to over
dependence on few convention energy sources and annual increase growth in
energy demand due to the growing population. (SREP Investment Plan for
Uganda,2015). Uganda`s total energy consumption is estimated at 0.0593

3
quadrillion Btu. (14.94 M tons oil equivalent) with domestic sector taking the lion
share of energy consumed. (Okello, Pindozzi, Faugno, & Boccia, 2013).

Uganda’s energy sources can be classified into traditional(biomass),

commercial(non-biomass) and alternative energy sources. (Peter N. Walekhwa,
Mugisha, & Drake, 2009). Traditional energy includes solid fuel wood, charcoal,
and crop residues for domestic use. Commercial energy comprises of electricity
and petroleum products while alternative sources include renewable energy such
as biogas, solar energy among others. Uganda like other developing countries over
rely on few conventional energy sources comprising of biomass, petroleum
products and grid electricity as the driver of economic development. (Peter N.
Walekhwa, Mugisha, & Drake, 2009)

Traditional biomass is the most important source of domestic energy contributing

to 80% of energy generated which is divided into solid fuelwood 78%, charcoal
5.9%, crop residues 4.8% and the remaining balance is oil products. (export.gov,
2017). Electricity contributes to 1.7 % of the national energy demand and oil
products account for 9.7% which is mainly used for vehicles and thermal power
plants. Fuelwood is the most common cooking fuel particularly in rural areas used
by 98% of the households while urban populations mostly use charcoal 5.8%. (Lee,
2013)

Uganda in 2012 had installed electricity capacity of 868,9 MW mainly from hydro
power (on grid) which provided about 862.5 MW (86%) and 6.23MW off grid.
(Uganda Energy Situation) however, hydro-electricity supply only 17% energy at
national level and 7% energy to the rural population. (SE4ALL, 2015, June).

Petroleum products represent about 11.5% of the primary energy consumption

and are used inform of gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene, fuel oil, aviation, and
liquefied petroleum gas(LPG). Diesel fuel takes the largest share of petroleum and
is mainly use in vehicles and thermal power plants. Most petroleum products are
imported to the country and their prices are greatly affected by fluctuation in the
international rates. (Ministry of Works and Transport 2017; Uganda Bureau of
Statistics, 2017; Uganda Revenue Authority, 2017). And the good news is that an
estimated 6.5 million barrels of oil reserve was discovered of which 20% are
currently retrievable but this increase unsustainable reliance on petroleum

4
products which differ investment in renewable energy. (Uganda Revenue
Authority, 2017).

The use of commercial fuels such as liquefied petroleum gas and kerosene for
cooking by households is very insignificant and this is mainly the case in rural
areas, but kerosene is the major source of energy for light for more than 90% of
rural households and 58% for urban households. (Bisu, Kuhe, & Iortyer, 2016)

However, there has been efforts to promote solar photovoltaic (PV) and thermal
systems but their contribution remain insignificant to the country´s energy supply.
The dependence on few conventional energy sources especially traditional
biomass is increasingly becoming unsustainable because of the negative
environmental(deforestation) and health impacts. (Okello, Pindozzi, Faugno, &
Boccia, 2014). And these resources are depleting rapidly more than they can be
replenish. The concern about the negative environmental impact of biomass has
lent huge weight to switching to other modern alternative technologies which
provide clean and sustainable energy sources. There has been growing interest in
evaluating alternative like bio-fuel(bio-oil), bio-briquettes, pellets, biogas, solar
cookers among others. (Okello, Pindozzi, Faugno, & Boccia, 2013). Detailed
description of energy used by category in Uganda is in the figure below.

5
Figure 1: Energy use by category in Uganda, Source: (Okello, Pindozzi, Faugno, &
Boccia, 2013)

1.2. Overview of Uganda´s Energy sector projection 2030

Mix of many sources currently provide energy in Uganda however, solid biofuel
still dominates. (Okello, Pindozzi, Faugno, & Boccia, 2013). In the future scenario
the energy mix will be diversified in the medium and long-term scale by 2030 with
enormous resources of solar, biofuels, biomass, hydro, geothermal and bio-based
fuels, and this will reduce the dependency on solid biofuel and set a basis for
providing modern and cleaner energy services to Ugandans.

In 2015, Uganda developed an Action Agenda in line with the United Nation goals
for sustainable energy for all. (UN-SE4ALL-Vision, 2011). The goals outline
milestones through 2030 for building the three main energy pillars of sustainable
development: energy access, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. Using the
SEALL AA initiative Uganda has set quantitative objectives for each of the
initiatives goals of:

• Universal access to modern energy services by increasing the percentage

of the population with access to electricity by more than 98%.

• Increasing the percentage number of people with access to modern

cooking solutions by close to 99%.

6
 • Reducing national wood consumption by 40% and improve energy
efficiency of power users by minimum 20%.

• Doubling the share of renewable energy in total final energy consumption

power by 95% and thermal by 36%.

Uganda energy’s overview in 2030 will be a mix of very many energy resources
with majority coming from renewable energy because of the available renewable
energy potential. However, the discovery of oil and large deposits of uranium in
Uganda may differ investment in renewable energy as uranium will give huge
potential to building a nuclear energy. (Uganda Revenue Authority, 2017).

To achieve the sustainable energy for all in 2030 the government of Uganda
through the integrations of the key energy sectors came out with the following
official policies. The ministry of energy and mineral development developed
strategies for rural electrification to provide modern energy to rural households
through off grid and grid connections:

• Over 60,000 domestic bio-gas for rural households will be constructed.

(National Biomass Energy Demand Strategy 2001-2010)

• 3.17 million households will relate to off grid connections like solar home
system, mini and micro hydro connection) (National Biomass Energy
Demand Strategy 2001-2010)

• The forest policy integrated farm forestry as a major strategy in ensuring

adequate supply of biomass resources and this is through the plan for
modernisation of Agriculture to meet the increasing demand for fuel wood
and control deforestation. (NPA, 2007)

• To provide modern and clean energy to household the government plan

to supply 1 million urban households with LPG stoves,5.4 million
households will have improved stoves and charcoal stoves.

• The Uganda electricity distribution companies will connect about 3.95

million households into the national grid by 2030 which means 670,000
new connections yearly until 2030. (SE4ALL, 2015, June) but this goal was
criticized by other stakeholders as being over ambitious.

7
1.3. Biomass Distribution in Uganda
Uganda has huge biomass resources and currently provides about 90% primary
energy to household’s due to accessibility, affordability, limited access to
electricity and high prices of petroleum products. Various sources of biomass are
found in Uganda, among them are the different types of vegetations and land use
types like hardwood plantations. (Kyarikunda, Nyamukuru, Mulindwa, & Tabuti,
2017).

The total standing biomass stock is 284.1 million tons with the potential to supply
45 million tons. However, the accessible sustainable woody biomass is 26 million
tons which can meet only 59% of the total demand of 44 million tons per annum.
Theoretical potential production of agricultural residues is between 1,186,000-
1,203,000 tons annually. (David Kureeba).

Most biomass is use for cooking and heating while a smaller share is used for
fertilizers and animal fodder. The demand and supply for woody biomass
scenario projects a deficit now and later to acute deficit due to increase in
population (Development, National Biomass Energy Demand Strategy 2001-2010).

8
Figure 2:Map of Uganda showing Biomass distribution. Source: (The Renewable
Energy Policy for Uganda 2007-2017, 2007). The area marked circle in the map of
Uganda shows the study area with thick tropical rainforest.

9
1.4 Overview of the study area-Northern Uganda
Northern Uganda is one of the four regions in Uganda with a population estimate
of 7,188,139. (Uganda Bureau of Statistics, 2017). The region has a total land area
of 85,391.7 km2 (32,969.9 sq mi). Its estimated that 78% of the population rely on
Agriculture as a source of livelihood with majority living in the rural areas and
more than a third of the population live below the international poverty level of
1.9$ a day this makes Northern Uganda as one of the poorest regions in Uganda.
(World Bank Group, 2016).
An estimated 98% of Northern Uganda population rely on solids biomass energy
for cooking (fuel wood, charcoal, dung, and crop residues) and petroleum product
(paraffin for light), moreover, majority are using less fuel-efficient technologies
(three stones open fire system and kerosene lamps) which emit a lot of indoor
smoke. (Okello, Pindozzi, Faugno, & Boccia, 2014)

1.5. Problem statement and justification

Lack of access to modern, clean affordable and reliable source of energy to
households in Uganda has led to over reliance on solid fuel. Biomass being the
most important source of household’s energy in Uganda is contributing to a huge
negative social, economic, health and environmental impacts as huge area of forest
is being destroyed yearly. (Okello, Pindozzi, Faugno, & Boccia, 2013). Majority of
households in Uganda rely entirely on biomass for cooking and very often
biomass is burnt inefficiently in open three-stone fires and traditional cook stoves,
which contribute to severe health problems mostly to women and children who
are the most exposed to smoke and moreover, families spent substantial time
collecting fuelwood which exposes them to danger. Its estimated that about 23,000
premature deaths in Uganda are because of indoor pollutions. (Vaccari, Vitali, &
Tudor, 2017).

Even though traditional biomass use is still sometimes considered unsustainable

and primitive, biomass remains the most common primary energy source due to
its accessibility and affordability (Zaccai, 2017), available in some form almost
everywhere and can be burnt directly and usually cheaper than other fuels and
when collected available at no monetary cost. (Kandel, Chapagain, Sharma, &

10
Vetaas, 2016). The fact that biomass contribute highly to household energy, the
production and supply is still managed by the informal sector and the
technologies employed from production to consumption are mainly traditional
and inefficient and are associated with high pollution emission, increased rate of
deforestation and other environmental degradation. (Bisu, Kuhe, & Iortyer, 2016;
David Kureeba; Kandel, Chapagain, Sharma, & Vetaas, 2016; Okello et al., 2013).
(Lee, 2013). There is the need to address both demand and supply side
management, through research, development, and dissemination of and the use
of modern biomass technologies and other alternative sources of renewable
energy. And this can be done in four main ways:

• To promote trees planting(agro-forestry) through integrating forest

management and renewable energy.

• Introducing more energy efficient technologies like fuel saving cook stoves

• Develop alternative fuels like biogas, bio-oil, bio-briquettes, bio-pellets.

• Promote the replacement of fuel using techniques like solar cookers.

• To promote alternative source of energy for lighting apart from electricity

and petroleum products(paraffin) with household PV solar systems.

1.6. Research question and sub-questions.

Limited access to clean, modern, affordable, and sustainable energy to households
in Uganda has forced people to over rely on solid biomass and petroleum products
to provide energy for cooking and lighting with majority using inefficient energy
technologies. These identified problems can be addressed using modern,
sustainable, and less costly modern biomass technologies, solar cookers, and small
scale-micro PV Solar technologies and this brings me to the following questions:

1. How to create awareness and introduce sustainable small scale modern biomass
technologies, solar cookers, and small-scale PV solar systems for households in
Northern Uganda?

In this context the feasible aspects will cover technological, socio-economic, and
environmental aspects which gives the following sub-questions:

1. What are the proposed technologies for households in Northern Uganda?

11
 2. What are the social-economic and environmental benefits of these
technologies to households in Northern Uganda?
3. What are hinderance towards the adoption of these technologies?

1.7. Scope of the study

The study focused mainly on households’ energy consumption in Northern
Uganda. It focused on the energy demand and how to best solve the energy
problem in the most economical way using the available local resources. The aim
is to start with solving household’s energy demand and later maybe in the future
the solutions can be expanded to other sectors using solid fuel for example
commercial food vendors, institutions like schools, hospitals, Industrial
consumption especially in bricks, lime, and tea industry, small-scale industries
like bakeries, coffee processing factories, soya processing factories and maize
processing factories.

1.8 Relevance of the study

This study covered a variety of issues concerning the household’s energy
consumption pattern in Uganda. The result obtained from the study can be used
in many ways for example by policy makers in the ministry of energy and mineral
development, non-governmental organizations, and other government
institutions to implemented household’s energy intervention and to extend
knowledge and bridge baseline gap in information on households’ adoption of
modern and improved energy technologies in developing countries.

12
1.9. Organisation of the thesis
CHAPTER 1: Introduction
An introduction to the research topic which included overview of Uganda´s energy sector,
energy sector projection 2030, biomass distribution in Uganda, problem statement and
justification, research questions and sub-objectives, scope of the study, relevance of the
study.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Literature review of the alternative modern renewable technologies solutions to households
in Northern Uganda
Chapter 3: Methods and Methodology
This chapter comprises of the method and methodology used in the study
Chapter 4: Theoretical Framework
This chapter comprises of DPISR framework and CBA framework for household’s energy
intervention based on the WHO guidelines for household energy intervention and the
necessary assumptions that were used for calculating CBA on private individuals, the
society and local perspective-Northern Uganda

Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of CBA results

This chapter consisted of the analysis, results and discussion of the CBA framework based
on Net present value and internal rate of return for alternative clean technologies based on
societal and private perspective.

Chapter 6: Analysis and Discussion of data from field findings

This chapter comprises of the result and discussion of the field survey based on the survey
tool questionnaire. In this chapter there is descriptive statistics, discussion, and result of
analysis of data using SSPS.

Chapter 7: Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter comprises of the summary of findings from both field study and CBA
Framework, conclusions, recommendations, policy implications and future research

13
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
A literature review was conducted to provide a broader theoretical background
about alternative small scale renewable energy technologies, to offer deeper
understanding, and to gain insight and information related to these technologies
with emphasis on small scale/household’s biogas, bio-briquettes, bio-pellets, bio-
oils, solar cooking, and small scale/households PV-solar technologies options for
households in Northern Uganda. These sustainable renewable energy
technologies can be used for cooking and to provide light. This chapter describes
the technological solutions to the problems identified in chapter one while
considering the socio-economic and environmental benefits and identifying
barriers and solutions to best help households in Northern Uganda meet their
energy needs in the most sustainable, economical, and using the resources that are
locally available without causing any negative environmental impacts.

To introduce these solution technologies, chapter 2.1 focused on bio-oil which is

extracted from oil crops ,2.1(a) bio-pellets, and2.1(b) bio-briquettes are from
agricultural residues, industrial waste, and forest residues. Chapter 2.2 measured
small scale biogas technology commonly known as family size biogas and sources,
chapter 2.3 focused on solar cooking technologies/solar cookers and 2.4 focused
on small scale PV-solar technology use in Northern Uganda.

These identified sustainable technologies are in the market, others have been
introduced, successfully implemented but not widely adopted while some are yet
to be introduced or are on the pilot stage with the hope of being adopted in
Uganda.

2.1 Small scale renewable energy technologies considered in the study.

2.1.1 Bio-oil
Bio-oil is a dark brown free flowing combustible liquid fuel produced from
biomass that contains water of about 20- 25% by weight depending on the initial
biomass feedstocks and method of extraction (Bridgewater, 2012). Bio-oil is
derived from different kinds of biomass feedstocks, both edible and non-edible,
perennial and annual oil crops like soya bean, canola, palm oil, rapeseed, jatropha

14
(Koh & Mohd. Ghazi, 2011), waste cooking oil, animal fats and algae among
others. (Windt & Th¨unen-Institut f¨ur Holzforschung, 2012; Yaakob, Mohammad,
Alherbawi, Alam, & Sopian, 2013; Pstrowska, Walendziewski, & Stolarski, 2014;
Lemoine & Thompson, 2014; Patel & Kumar, 2016; Rahyla, Radin Firdaus,
Purwaningrum, & Yildiz, 2017).
Bio-oil is a biodegradable, environmental friendly fuel derived from renewable
biomass resources with the potential to relieve the global dependence on
petroleum-based fuels, solid biomass, deforestation, and the problem of climate
change from greenhouse gas emissions. (Chen et al., 2015). Bio-oil are used as
substitute for conventional fuel and to provide access to clean energy services.
(Chen et al.,2015; Moreira, dos Reis Orsini, Vaz, Penteado, & Spinacé, 2017).

Bio-oil is use in many static applications for example boilers, furnaces, engines
and turbines for electricity or heat generation. Bio-oil from for example jatropha
can be used for transportation and domestic use for example in rural settings for
cooking and lighting replacing kerosene, firewood, and charcoal. (Halder,
Joardder, Beg, Paul, & Ullah, 2015(Nicla Contran et al., 2013).

However, used as a transportation fuel is not yet economic though feasible but the
by products for example chemicals extracted are of high value and can be used
including food flavouring, agri-chemicals, fertilizers, cattle cakes, soap production
and emission control agents. (Achten et al., 2008; Koh & Mohd. Ghazi, 2011) It’s a
source of income to small scale farmers engaged in oil crops cultivation (UNDESA,
2007) and in Sub Saharan biofuel is promoted to provide sustainable energy for
rural electrification. (Contran et al., 2016; Sekoai & Yoro, 2016)

Biomass refers to source of energy stored via plant absorption from solar energy
in the process of photosynthesis and other biological process. (Mohanty, 2012). It’s
the type of energy that is sourced from various sources like plants and animals
(Ali et al., 2017). Biomass can be made of all water and land based organisms,
vegetations and trees, virgin biomass and all dead and waste biomass like
municipal solid waste, bio solid(sewage) and animal waste(manures) and residues
like forestry and agricultural residues and other types of industrial waste which
can be used as fuel for the purpose of recovering its energy (Bildirici & Özaksoy

15
,2016), either directly through combustion to produce heat or indirectly after
conversion into semi-processed bioenergy such as bio-oil, bio-pellets, bio-
briquettes, biogas and ethanol.(Rahyla, Radin Firdaus, Purwaningrum, & Yildiz,
2017).

2.1.2 Bio-oil technology in Uganda.

In Uganda, there has been a growing interest by the private sectors, individuals,
and the government into the liquid biofuel sector and this has attracted massive
research, development, and investments towards the cultivation of oil crops,
processing, and conversion into liquid bio-fuel. (William Kyamuhangire, 2008).
The increased interest by the government in the liquid biofuel sector is due to the
need to increase the level of renewable energy utilisation from 4%level to 61% by
2017. And the policy aims to blend petroleum products with 20% biodiesel in the
transport sector. (The-Renewable-Energy-Policy-for-Uganda-2007-2017, 2007)

Several energy oil crops have been suggested ranging from jatropha, palm oil,
Castrol oil nuts, sugar cane, maize, groundnuts, soya-beans, cassava, palm-oil,
sunflower, candle nut tree and cotton. (William Kyamuhangire, 2008; NEMA,
2010).
Jatropha has the highest bio- oil potential and can be cultivated on a small-scale
plantation established by households or planted on marginal lands or
intercropped in agro-forestry system. (Deenanath, Iyuke, & Rumbold, 2012).
Jatropha cultivation became widely adopted in Uganda due to the ease to grow
and since the plant has been traditionally used as a live hedge and livestock
fence/kraal in Uganda for a very long period. (Kumar, Srivastava, & Jha, 2016;
Duku, Gu, & Hagan, 2011). Jatropha oil when extracted can be used for cooking
and lighting fuel adopting special equipment replacing firewood and charcoal,
kerosene, and petroleum products. (Contran et al., 2016)

Other energy crops with oil potential like cassava, ground nuts, simsims and
maize are grown in all parts of the country for food, but the use is being expanded
to provide bio-fuel in terms of ethanol and bio-oil. The promotion of bio-fuel into
the renewable energy sector in Uganda has attracted the use of maize as a
feedstock for bio- ethanol production and this has affected the price of the

16
commodity. Maize is being promoted as feedstock elsewhere in Africa especially
South Africa amidst concern about the increase in price of maize based bio-ethanol
feedstocks. (Deenanath, Iyuke, & Rumbold, 2012).

2.1.3 Bio-oil extraction

Bio-oil is extracted through different kinds of technologies ranging from
mechanical, thermo-chemical, biological, physical, and chemical oil extraction
techniques. (Achten et al., 2008; Bridgwater, 2012). However, other technologies
are beyond the scope of this study. The extraction technology in focus will be
mechanical oil extraction.

2.1.3.1 Mechanical Extraction

Oil fruits/seeds are harvested manually, opened, and dried in open air and the oil
is then extracted mechanically (Collins Okello 1, 2014), using the following:

• Traditional methods using wooden or stone sekku (mortar and pestle)

• Batch oil press (cold press method)
• Expellers
2.1.3.2 Batch oil presses
Oil extraction can be more effectively carried out using batch type presses ranging
from small, hand-driven models to power-driven commercial scale hydraulic
presses. The batch press method is used for oil extraction to get high quality oil at
a low temperature. The process is also known as the cold press method, and the
oil (content) yield recorded is comparatively less than that expeller. (Sugathapala,
2013)
2.1.3.3 Expellers

17
Figure 3: The batch Cottage level oil expeller. Source: (Sugathapala, 2013)

The expeller unit consists of a hollow cylinder made from stainless steel, a piston,
a handle, a pressure indicator gauge, and a mounting frame to house all the above.
The amount of crushed seed kernel that the expeller can accommodate per batch
is 1.5 - 2 kg. After loading a batch into the cylinder, the piston (in the form of a
circular disc) - which is fitting quite perfectly with the inner walls of the cylinder
with minimum clearance and is attached to an arm - is pressed by a hydraulic jack.
This forces the oil to be expelled from the feed through the perforated holes. The
oil is then collected for filtration and further processing. After complete expulsion,
the hydraulic press is released, and the residue cake is removed from the cylinder
for further processing. The whole operation takes about 30 - 45 minutes per batch.

18
2.1.3.4. Expellers for jatropha seeds
The oil is extracted using expellers which are designed for a variety of seeds under
rural conditions. Oil fruits/seeds of jatropha are harvested manually, opened, and
dried in open air before being fed to the expellers and the impurities in the oil are
left to settle before the oil is purified using a piece of cotton cloth (gravitational
method) (Achten et al., 2008)

Figure 4: Oil extraction using Jatropha seeds expeller. Source: (Sugathapala, 2013)

Expellers are privately owned or by a group or individual who provides oil

extraction service at a fee and the combustion takes place in plant oil pressure
stoves such as the protos. Part of the oil extracted is used for making soap and this
can therefore diversify the rural economy. (Collins Okello 1, 2014). expellers as
being cost effective method of bio-oil extraction, but low efficiency is realized due
to low output for example of about 1 liter per 8-10 kilograms of seeds. (Harrison,
2011). Detailed pictures of example of small scale expellers use in a variety of micro
scale jatropha oil to produce bio-oil can be found in (Appendix D,Figure 18).
(UNDESA, 2007)

2.1.4 Characteristics of bio-oil

Bio-oil possesses some special features and characteristics like high oxygen
content, low heating, high corrosiveness, viscosity, chemical instability, and high-

19
water content. (Lee et al., 2016; Koh & Mohd. Ghazi, 2011) and this affect storage,
transportation, upgrading and utilization. (Bridgwater, 2012; Heracleous, Lappas,
& Serrano, 2017). Physical upgrade, catalytic, and chemical techniques are used to
make the oil compatible with equipment and infrastructure and add value (Lorenz
Bauer, 2017; Koh & Mohd. Ghazi, 2011; Yusuf Makarfi Isa⁎, 2018),

2.1.5 Concerns related to liquid biofuel development in developing countries.

Despite the growing interest in Biofuel production in Africa and in particularly
Uganda, there is growing concern about sustainability, food security and land
usage. (africareportingproject.org,2010). In Uganda 67% rely on subsistence
agriculture and 90% rural population depend on agriculture for livelihood. Jewitt
& Kunz, (2011) noted these concerns about the change of usage of land for biofuel
production as large chunk of land will be converted for growing energy crops
other than food production. (Jewitt & Kunz, 2011). Most African countries
primarily depend on agriculture for livelihood and farming is mostly carried out
on small scale and this could affect food security as many people will opt out of
food production and adopt oil crop production which will affect food security.
(food security vs fuel). (Sekoai & Yoro, 2016).

Environmentally, biofuel production causes environmental degradation such as

water pollution due excessive use of agro-chemical, destruction of forest
resources, ecosystem, biodiversity and altering soil structures and fertility. (Jewitt
& Kunz, 2011; africareportingproject.org,2010; gebe.foei.org, 2014).

According to M.S. Swaminathan, (2015.) “Food security and energy security are closely
related, but they need the underpinning of environmental security and sustainability”.
(M.S. Swaminathan, 2015).

And this is also found in the ethical framework for bio-fuel production” (i) biofuels
development should not be at the expense of people ‘s essential rights (including access to
sufficient food and water, health rights, work rights, and land entitlements) and (ii)
biofuels should be environmentally sustainable”. (Kumar et al., 2016; Jewitt & Kunz,
2011).

20
Reddy et al. (2008) suggested, that energy crops be promoted on wastelands and
field bunds responding appropriately for preventing land/environmental
degradation and Méndez-Vázquez et al., (2016) in their studies found out that bio-
oil can also be extracted from agricultural waste however the process maybe not
be cost effective and very expensive. (Jewitt & Kunz, 2011; Méndez-Vázquez et al.,
2016).
Jewitt & Kunz, (2011) explained that, for example crops like Jatropha can be
intercropped with other food crops, planted on marginal land (Wendimu, 2016),
and since jatropha does not require so much attention, small-scale farmers would
have time to attend to food crops production. However, Edrisi et al., (2015)
contradicted with this, in their study they found out that jatropha need
considerable attention and only grow well under certain conditions. (Kumar et al.,
2016; Edrisi et al., 2015)

Yusuf Makarfi Isa⁎, (2018) On the other hand suggested for imperative life cycle
assessment to ascertain the extent of ecosystem balance of feedstocks production
systems especially on edible feedstocks so that land and water resources are not
stretched. (Achten et al., 2008; Yusuf Makarfi Isa⁎, 2018).

Since bio-oil is a viable technology, oil crops can be planted on small scale level,
where farmers can come in small groups and set up a small bio-oil extraction plant
to produce their own oil that can be used for cooking and lighting , Uganda can
take a leaf from African countries that have succeeded in setting up pilot schemes
for jatropha like Ghana (N. Contran et al., 2016), Mozambique, Kenya (Mogaka et
al., 2014), Tanzania (Grimsby, Aune, & Johnsen, 2012), Ethiopia(Wendimu, 2016)
and Zambia.(Sekoai & Yoro, 2016).

One common thing about these countries is that, they have established several
small-scale jatropha pilot projects in rural areas to produce bio-oil with the aim to
contribute towards rural electrification. (UNDESA, 2007).

2.1.2 Bio-pellets
Bio-pellets are densified biomass wastes with increased calorific value per volume.
The feedstocks are compressed mechanically to obtain uniform shape that could
accommodate for storage or transportation. Pellets are categorized by their

21
heating value, moisture and ash content and dimensions. (Stelte et al., 2011).
Quality of pellets products depends on many process variables for example the
type of feedstocks, moisture contents, particle size, die diameter, die temperature
and pressure, type of binders and pre-heating of the biomass mix. (Liu et al., 2016;
Kusumaningrum & Munawar, 2014).

Bio-pellets can be produced from any form of biomass like industrial waste and
co-products, food waste, energy crops, virgin lumber, agricultural residues like
crop stalk and raw materials, rice husk, cotton stalk, coffee husk, alfalfa straw,
coconut shell, palm Shell, sugar bagasse, energy crop, fermented cassava,forest
residues like branches, bark, leaves, solid junks include junk paper, waste plastic,
cardboard, and others.Wood pellets are the most common feedstocks made from
compacted saw dust and related industrial wastes like lumber, manufactured
wood products and furniture. (Wikipedia, 2018).

Densified wood pellets are increasingly becoming common source of energy in

developing countries and are widely picking up in the Uganda cooking fuel
market. Due to their uptake little information is available on the adoption but it’s
beginning to displace charcoal and fuel wood as the primary source of energy
mostly in rural areas. (Price, 2017) and has been proven financially stimulating to
rural and urban households as a viable alternative for households who currently
use charcoal burning stoves because it is less expensive than charcoal, less
environmental damaging and improve indoor air quality and it does not need
behavioural changes. (Dobson et al., 2015)

Since agriculture is the back bone of Uganda with 67 % of the population engaged
in agricultural activities and 90% of the rural population. (Sanchez, Dennis, &
Pullen, 2013; Uganda Bureau of Statistics, 2017), there is abundance of agricultural
residues that can be converted into energy. Agricultural residues accounts for 4.7-
5.5% of the total energy generated in Uganda. (Development, National Biomass
Energy Demand Strategy 2001-2010) and annually, about 1.2 million tons of crop
residues are produced (Ferguson, 2012) and this can be densified into pellets
which are excellent substitute to using woody biomass for many reasons aside
from their abundance and renewability, using agricultural residues will benefit

22
farmers, industry, human health, and the environment. ((Ståhl, 2008); Dobson,
Nyamweru, & Dodman, 2015).

Despite the abundance of crop residues large amount are burnt in the field as a
means of disposal leaving only little for improving and maintaining soil fertility
and this leaves a great deal of energy potential unutilized and being wasted.
Upgrading and transforming such resources into marketable higher energy forms
such as pellets and briquettes would require new and use technologies targeted
towards households, institutional and industrial users. (Méndez-Vázquez et al.,
2016).

2.1.2.1 Benefits of bio-pellets

Kusumaningrum & Munawar, (2014) outlined the benefits of using bio-pellets
(pelletized residual biomass) as an alternative bioenergy that could substitute
solid fuel-based energy because of the following reasons: (Kusumaningrum &
Munawar, 2014)
1) They can be used as fuels for power generation, commercial or residential
heating and cooking. (Méndez-Vázquez et al., 2016),
2) Abundance, in expensive and high energy density compared to raw biomass
(10-15%), and a low-cost technology,
3) Ease of storage and transportation over long distance. (Méndez-Vázquez et al.,
2016) and classified as renewable energy. (Theerarattananoon et al., 2011; Unpinit,
Poblarp, Sailoon, Wongwicha, & Thabuot,2015),
4) Burning wood pellets reduces the release of methane, carbon dioxide and other
hydrocarbons. (Méndez-Vázquez et al., 2016)
5) High density pellets and are environmentally friendly solid bio-fuel. (Unpinit,
Poblarp, Sailoon, Wongwicha, & Thabuot, 2015).

However, Deac, Fechete-Tutunaru, & Gaspar, (2016), identified problems

associated with bio-pellets like having low energy density and direct combustion
could cause respiratory problems because of carbon monoxide, Sulphur oxide and
other particulate properties produced in the process. (Ståhl, 2008; Deac, Fechete-
Tutunaru, & Gaspar, 2016). Fatal accident of dust explosion has been reported in

23
private storerooms and onboard marine vessels (Rusdianto & Choiron, 2015) and
the cost to set up a bio-pellets plant is very high.

2.1.3 Bio-briquettes
Biomass briquetting is the conversion of loose biomass material into a high-
density product by subjecting the material under high pressure, with or without a
binder, briquetting process involves material collection, drying, commutation and
densification, using various types of presses. (Okello, Pindozzi, Faugno, & Boccia,
2013) The product is briquettes which is easier to handle, transport and has better
combustion properties than the original biomass material. Bio-briquettes can
replace fossil fuels, charcoal, and natural firewood for domestic and industrial
heating. (Shuma & Madyira, 2017).

Bio-briquettes can be produced from any form of biomass like industrial waste
and co-products, food waste, energy crops, virgin lumber, agricultural residues
like crop stalk and raw materials, rice husk, cotton stalk, coffee husk, alfalfa straw,
coconut shell, palm Shell, sugar bagasse, energy crop, fermented cassava and
forest residues like branches, bark, leaves, solid junks include junk paper, waste
plastic, cardboard, and others. (Wikipedia, 2018).

According to Ferguson, (2012), bio-briquettes has a range of benefits like burning

efficiently and smokeless compared to charcoal and coal, leave no residues, it uses
leads to environmental and economic sustainability, easy to store and transport,
higher thermal value and has potential to be a source of renewable energy if they
are from sustainably harvested biomass or agricultural residues. (Ferguson, 2012)

However, Dobson et al., (2015) on the other hand disagreed and cited that cost for
setting up a bio-pellets plant is very high and is labour intensive, negative
environmental impacts and indoor air pollution from direct combustion (Ståhl,
2008), but it has been proven financially stimulating to rural and urban households
and a viable alternative for households who currently use charcoal burning stoves
because it is less expensive than charcoal, less environmental damaging and
improve indoor air quality and does not require household behavioural
changes.(Dobson et al., 2015)

24
Briquetting has been applied for many years in developing countries, however the
technology is yet to take foothold in Uganda because of technical constraints
involve, cost of the machine, lack of knowledge to adapt the technology, market
and the availability of raw-materials and mode of production. (Ferguson, 2012;
(Sugathapala, 2013).
In Uganda, the available agricultural residues from crops like maize, cereals, roots
cane sugar, coffee and forest residues could be used as raw material for
briquetting. (Dobson, Nyamweru, & Dodman, 2015). In the proposed system, the
briquettes are used for cooking in gasifier stoves that are more efficient than
traditional stoves. (Collins Okello 1, 2014).

2.1.3.1 Types of bio-briquettes

There are two types of biomass briquettes that can come in different sizes and
shapes and their uses is dependent on the type of cook stove used to combust.
• Non-carbonized briquettes
• Carbonized briquettes
2.1.3.1.1 Non-carbonized briquettes
Biomass briquette is made from organic household waste such as corn husk,
nut shells, agricultural residues, and other natural feedstocks with high
hydrogen content. (Ferguson, 2012). These materials produce very low
greenhouse gas emission and emit no carbon particulates which help improve
household air quality. These materials are soaked to a pulp like consistency
and is moulded by either hands or machine. (Dobson et al., 2015).

Non-carbonised briquette can serve as a replacement to natural firewood and raw

fuel biomass because of greater energy per unit weight and burn longer.
Compared to firewood or loose biomass, briquettes have about 800-1500 kg/m3 in
average a 10 times higher density due to compression and lower moisture content.
(Ferguson, 2012). However, there is report of high smoke emission and that can
have adverse health impact.

2.1.3.1.2 Carbonized briquettes

are made from charcoal or char (burnt agricultural by- products under limited
oxygen). Fine charcoal and char are compressed or densified to form briquettes

25
with the use of a binder and this require no behavioural changes by users since
they can be burnt on normal charcoal stoves. (Dobson et al., 2015). Carbonized
briquettes are either handmade or machine made from charcoal fines that are lost
during retail and distribution chain. (Dobson et al., 2015). And in Uganda an
estimated 10-15% of charcoal produced (70,000 tonnes) annually can be used for
small scale briquettes production because it can be collected locally, cheaply, and
already been processed (raw biomass turned to char). This is the most economic
viable resource for briquetting, however, it creates an unsustainable dependence
on charcoal trade which is environmentally degrading and causes deforestation.
(Dobson et al., 2015; Ferguson, 2012; Tumutegyereize, Mugenyi, Ketlogetswe, &
Gandure, 2016).

2.1.3.1 Bio-briquettes production

Briquettes are made from raw biomass to improve the density, burn time and into
sizes and shapes to suit its purpose. Bio-briquettes can be made on both small and
large scale(industrial) and there can be difference in the type, scale, and equipment
but the main processing steps are the same. Materials for briquettes must be
grounded prior to briquetting (granular size of about 10mm if its wood products)
(Thabuot et al., 2015; Suryaningsih, Nurhilal, Yuliah, & Salsabila, 2018).
• The moisture content of the material should be around 12% not interfere
with drying of the material before briquetting. (G. DANON, 1997; H.
Haykiri-Acma, 2010; Liu et al., 2014; Thabuot et al., 2015; Tumutegyereize
et al., 2016).
• Compressing pressure between 1000-1500 bar to increase briquette density
and this depend on the material.
• Additional binders like starch or clay soil may be needed to bind the matter
together. (G. DANON, 1997; Thabuot, Pagketanang, Panyacharoen,
Mongkut, & Wongwicha, 2015; G. Sireesh Kumar, 2017; H. Haykiri-Acma,
2010; Liu, Huang, Lv, Gao, & Wang, 2014) and this is done in two ways:
(i) By subjecting the material to sufficiently high temperature and
pressure without adding extra binding agents, or
(ii) adding binding agents to enhance binding process if high
temperature cannot be achieved and this is the case with most
locally made briquette machines.

26
Common binders include cassava flour, molasses, wheat flour, fine clay, red soil
among others. (G. Sireesh Kumar, 2017; Tumutegyereize, Mugenyi, Ketlogetswe,
& Gandure, 2016) and to increase the mechanical strength of briquettes binders
such as humates, molasses, H3PO4 and sulphide liquor are used. (H. Haykiri-
Acma, 2010).

Since biomass feedstocks for making briquettes and pellets especially crop
residues in Uganda are generally decentralized, small scale, seasonal and remotely
located in rural areas with no proper infrastructural development, the idea of
village-scale factory would be a good solution.
Collins Okello 1(2014) cited in their study that, briquetting or pelletizing services
can be provided by a private proprietor at a fee, so the community can share one
briquette/pellet making machine. (Collins Okello 1, 2014). Shan, Li, Jiang, & Yang,
(2016).
Moreover, there is a considerable number of low-capital manual techniques that
have already been developed and many of these designs have been disseminated
in developing countries to encourage the production of briquettes and pellets
among rural communities who would otherwise lack access to industrial
technology. (Collins Okello 1, 2014).

2.2. Small scale/family size biogas technology

Biogas is an alternative source of clean renewable energy especially for a
developing country like Uganda and this has been based on the number of studies
that has emphasized the importance of biogas as an ideal alternative source of
clean and less expensive energy options for low income communities.(B.
Amigun1, 2012; Cutz, Haro, Santana, & Johnsson, 2016; Duku, Gu, & Hagan, 2011;
Halder, Paul, & Beg, 2014; Rupf, Bahri, de Boer, & McHenry, 2017; Skovsgaard &
Jacobsen, 2017).
According to Halder et al. (2014), biogas is a clean burning methane rich gas fuel
produced through anaerobic decomposition of organic matters of biomass from
different materials(substrates) ranging from animal waste to households,
agricultural industrial and human wastes in the absence of oxygen. (Anbu Elango
R, 2003). A simplified stoichiometry for anaerobic digestion of biomass is;

27
 C6 H10O5 + H2O 3CH4 + 3CO2

2.2.1 Methane gas yield

Biogas yield about 50-70% methane (CH4 ) and 30-45% carbon dioxide (CO2 ) with
small quantities of water vapor (H2O), hydrogen sulphide(H2S), ammonia(NH3),
nitrogen(N2) and carbon monoxide(CO) which can be utilized for cooking,
lighting, heating, electricity generation, or upgraded to become a transport fuel.
(Rupf, Bahri, de Boer, & McHenry, 2017). The by-products formed during the
process of digestion is a bio-fertilizer that can be used for improving soil nutrients
and crop yields. (Tucho, Moll, Schoot Uiterkamp, & Nonhebel, 2016). The amount
of biogas produced from a specific digester depends on factors such as the amount
of materials fed, the type of material, the carbon/nitrogen ratio, and digestion time
and temperature. (B. Amigun1, 2012; Peter N. Walekhwa et al., 2009)

2.2.3. Bio-gas production process

Biogas is a mixture of gases produced because of anaerobic decomposition of
organic matter mainly composed of methane, carbon dioxide and small portion of
hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, water vapor and volatile compound. (Okello,
Pindozzi, Faugno, & Boccia, 2013). Since Anaerobic digestion is a complex process
in the biogas production from organic waste the number of steps and their names
differs from many authors of scientific literatures. (Anbu Elango R, 2003; B.
Amigun1, 2012; UNEP, 2013; Okello, Pindozzi, Faugno, & Boccia, 2013;
Tumwesige, 2013; Nzila, 2017) and the methane formation takes place in four main
steps.
• Hydrolysis phase
• Acidification phase
• Acetogenic phase
• Methanogenic phase

In the first phase of hydrolysis aerobic micro-organisms are converted from

complex organic compounds (carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids) into simple
soluble compound that can be consumed by micro-organism. For example,
polysaccharides are converted to monosaccharides, lipids to fatty acids and
protein into amino acids and peptides. (B. Amigun1, 2012)

28
This phase requires different amount of time, for micro-organism to break down
complex compound for example carbohydrate takes few hours whereas protein
and lipids degradation require few days. (Anbu Elango R, 2003). During
hydrolysis, lignocellulose biomass degradation may tend to be slow and
incomplete because lignin molecule structure can be resistant to water and
bacterial. (Na, 2017). In this case a pretreatment is required to reduce the firmness
of lignin structure. And this will contribute to the success of hydrolysis and high
yield of methane in the end. (Nzila, 2017)

In acidification, acid producing bacteria (acetogenic bacteria) convert the

intermediates fermenting bacteria into mixture of acetic acid, hydrogen, carbon
dioxide, alcohols, organic acid, amino acid, and hydrogen sulfide. These bacteria
facilitate anaerobic growth, a condition that is essential for the methane producing
micro-organism. (B. Amigun1, 2012; Esposito et al., 2012)

Acetogenic phase is the third step where acetate is converted by acetogenic micro-
organism to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide because of syntrophic acetate
oxidizing bacteria and both micro-organisms are then inhibited in the presence of
high hydrogen concentration. They strive in symbiosis with hydrogen utilizing
methanogen population. (B. Amigun1, 2012; Mudhoo & Kumar, 2013; Na, 2017;
Nzila, 2017)

In methane formation, methane-producing bacteria utilize hydrogen, carbon

dioxide and acetic acid formed in acidification process to form methane and
carbon dioxide. (CH4 and CO2.) (B. Amigun1, 2012; Nzila, 2017)
All these steps in anaerobic production are connected and if there occur a problem
in one of the process then it can negatively affect the methane yield. The link is
very important more especially between the 3rd and 4th step if there is a disruption
of symbiosis between acetogenic and methanogenic. Most importantly over
acidification in acetogenic will cause problem to methane formation. (Esposito et
al., 2012; Cutz et al., 2016)

29
2.2.4 Biogas technology in Uganda
Biogas is a matured technology introduced in Uganda in the 1950s by the Church
Missionary Society(CMS). (Tumutegyereize, Ketlogetswe, Gandure, & Banadda,
2017) and since then there has been many initiatives by private individuals, NGOs,
the government, and other different development partners in promoting this
technology (Lwiza, Mugisha, Walekhwa, Smith, & Balana, 2017) through pilot
demonstration, capacity building and provision of subsidies to households.

The government agencies such as National Agricultural Research Organization

(NARO) and the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development and Non-
governmental organizations such as Heifer International Project, Adventist
Development and Relief Agency are amongst others promoting the technology.
Despite all efforts towards the dissemination of this technology in Uganda, its
adoption has been low. (Peter Nabusiu Walekhwa, Lars, & Mugisha, 2014)

The African Biogas Partnership Program (ABPP), with technical assistance from
SNV (Netherlands Development Organization), is developing the biogas sector by
promoting quality standards, results-based financial solutions, awareness
campaigns, and advocating for appropriate government support and policy. The
program is being implemented in four other African countries of Kenya, Tanzania,
Ethiopia, and Burkina Faso. (Tewelde Gebre Berhe, 2017)

In Uganda, the domestic biogas program 2009-2014 targeted 12,000 biogas

digesters by 2013 with support from the Netherlands Development Agency.
Unfortunately report about that cannot be assessed (Tumwesige, 2013). However,
it was estimated that only 500 biogas digesters were installed and 50% were not
operational. The low adoption of the technology is attributed to limited technical
skills, socio-economic, and organizational factors among others. (Peter Nabusiu
Walekhwa et al., 2014(Lwiza, Mugisha, Walekhwa, Smith, & Balana, 2017;
Mulinda et al., 2013; Skovsgaard & Jacobsen, 2017; Tucho, Moll, Schoot Uiterkamp,
& Nonhebel, 2016). For example, high investment cost which is prohibitively high
for most rural households, lack of skilled biogas technician for plant installations.
(Kelebe, Ayimut, Berhe, & Hintsa, 2017), high operation and maintenance cost
among others. (Owusu & Banadda, 2017).

30
B. Amigun1, (2012) and Edwards, (2016) suggested a subsidy led programs to
stimulate demand, training of biogas users to fill the information gap, training
technicians to bridge technical skills gap and the need for information which is
market oriented to increase the adoption of biogas. (B. Amigun1, 2012; Edwards,
2016). In another development, there is a suggested intervention target of 60,000
domestic biogas installation by 2030. (MEMD-SEALL, 2015)

Today, its estimated that about 7,176 biogas digester plant have been constructed
in Uganda compared to Kenya 18,152, Tanzania 6,500, Ethiopia 17,439, and
Burkina Faso 9,524. (africanbiogas, 2018). Different countries have over the years
adopted various biogas development programs. In Asia for example, the biogas
program aims at developing a market for biogas as a sustainable energy source in
countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, and Bangladesh. A total of 299,908 biogas
plants have been installed since 1992 in Asia and Africa (Tewelde Gebre Berhe,
2017)

2.2.5. Family size biogas plant design in Uganda

Various design of bio-digester from small to medium size have been developed
and are used in Uganda depending upon their purposes such as sanitation, energy
recovery, waste management and environmental protection. Their concept is
basically due to specific purposes, size, and anaerobic digestion model. The
concept design options have impact on gas production rate, the cost of investment,
digester monitoring and environmental conditions. The effective application of
these concepts ensures how better the digester will perform after installation.
(Yimana Mulinda, 2013).
The fixed dome design models are the most common model being disseminated
to households in Africa despite increasing number of design in the market today
like flat dome, tubular bio-digester, and bio-latrines among others (Tewelde Gebre
Berhe, 2017). The fixed dome digester is preferred because the design is more
durable and cheaper to install. Biogas plant design in Uganda are mainly the
small-scale type often referred to as family size digester (Peter N. Walekhwa et al.,
2009) and the volumes of these digester ranges from 8 m3 to 16m3.

31
To suit local conditions for example, the Center for Agricultural Mechanization
and Rural Technology (CAMARTEC) in Tanzania has redesigned CAMARTEC
model fixed dome design. (Mulinda, Hu, & Pan, 2013) with relatively low cost,
simple design with a long-life span of 20 years. (Sugathapala, 2013). Design of the
fixed dome digester are like those illustrated in figure below.

Figure 5:Fixed dome digester: CAMARTEC Model.Source: Adopted from

(Sugathapala, 2013)

2.2.6. Dissemination of family size biogas plant.

Family size biogas plant system has a certain requirement for plant installation.
The target group that is central in a commercially viable approach is the
households and their demand are in view of agriculture, health, sanitation,
environment, and clean energy services. (Edwards,2017). Animal manure is the
most common substrate for feeding households biogas, In the proposed system,
grass is cultivated to ensure reliable supply of cattle feeds, which are kept under a
zero-grazing system. An acre of pasture is provided for each animal, and normally
a household requires to have two herds of cattle or 8 pigs to generate sufficient
biogas. (Tewelde Gebre Berhe, 2017). The bio-digester is constructed
underground, and the substrate is mixed with water and fed to the digester on
daily basis. Simple burners are provided for combustion of the biogas, which is

32
conveyed from the digester to the house through pipes (Okello, Pindozzi, Faugno,
& Boccia, 2014).

According to Yimana Mulinda, (2013), the main characteristic of households for at

least having 2 herds of cattle or 8 pigs, is an indication that the technology will not
directly reach the very poor households in the rural areas. (Yimana Mulinda,
2013). But there is no doubt that domestic biogas will indirectly improve the
livelihood of the very poor by improving access to non-commercial domestic fuel,
general improvement of the community’s sanitary and environmental situation
and generation of employment for example construction and after sales services.
(Felix ter Heegde, 2007).

2.2.7 Roles of biogas (Anaerobic digestion)

An ideal renewable energy source is one which is locally available, affordable and
can be easily used and managed by local communities. Anaerobic digestion is one
of a few technologies that offers the technical possibility of decentralized
approaches to the provision of modern energy services using local resources.
Biogas technology contributes to the reduction of deforestation rates and over
dependence on fossil fuel. (Rupf et al., 2017), time saving for women and children
in the rural area by reducing the time spent collecting fuelwood and this gives
women time to engage in economic activities leading to poverty alleviation. (Peter
N. Walekhwa et al., 2009). Combustion of biogas is smoke free pollutants, thereby
the use leads to improved indoor air quality resulting in improved health of
women and children who are the most exposed group to the risk of smoke. (Okello
et al., 2013).

In Uganda majority of bio digester are households scale system use for cooking
and lighting because of its ability to increase improved energy access, waste
management and sanitation. The technology is scalable and can be constructed
from local resources. (Tucho, Moll, Schoot Uiterkamp, & Nonhebel, 2016)
Furthermore, the development of biogas technology improves quality of life by
providing dependable power supply to the rural and urban households. And
contribute to the generation of new jobs especially for rural and farming
communities, biogas technicians, causal laborers among others.

33
Generally, the technology is environmentally friendly and preserve ecosystems
because of the positive environmental properties like low release of net carbon
dioxide and Sulphur. It reduces greenhouse gas emission, eutrophication, and air
pollution. (Peter N. Walekhwa et al., 2009). It improves crops nutrient from the
use of slurry as fertilizer. Biogas plant provide multiple benefits to households
resulting into resource conservation and environmental protection. (Cutz et al.,
2016).

2.3. Solar cookers /Solar cooking technologies

Solar cookers are devices that use the energy of solar radiation to cook food. They
can be made locally of any size and capacity, they are economical to use in areas
with good solar radiation intensity, where the price for cooking fuel is much
higher and no longer affordable by many families and many areas where
deforestation is associated with use of solid fuel and socially as the money used to
buy fuel can be used to buy food. (MacClancy, 2015a)
A solar cooker converts solar energy into heat that can be used to cook food and
other processes like pasteurization and sterilization. (Regattieri, Piana, Bortolini,
Gamberi, & Ferrari, 2016). Solar energy is diffuse in nature, falls over the earth,
and it appears to be the most limitless source of energy, its free, anyone can use it
without having to pay a fee thus taking advantage of the sun heat for cooking can
contribute in alleviating an array of contemporary social, economic, and
environmental problems especially in developing countries. (MacClancy, 2015b)

Solar cooking is not a new technology as it dates to 1767 when the first invention
of the first solar box cooker by a French-Swiss physicist named Horrace de
Saussure. (Harmim, Merzouk, Boukar, & Amar, 2013; Saxena, Varun, Pandey, &
Srivastav, 2011). In 1945 by Sri M.K Ghose and in 1961, the UN Conference on New
sources of energy technology included many authorities on solar cooking
technology was held and in 1976 Barbara Kerr and Sherry Cole developed box
solar cooker. In 1950s, many Indian scientists took interest in solar cookers as
options to control deforestation. (Yettou, Azoui, Malek, Gama, & Panwar, 2014).
However, much of the present days impetus to the promotion of solar cooking
device derives from experiments conducted in California in the post war decades

34
by independent minded individuals and since then, many organizations and
NGOs have taken the initiatives to promote the use of solar cookers throughout
the impoverished parts of the tropical regions. (MacClancy, 2015b).

2.3.1 Types of solar cookers

There are very many types and designs of solar cookers developed around the
world and are still being improved by scientists and researchers and this makes
classification a very difficult task but never the less, solar cookers are classified
into two categories based on the types of collector and temperature order.
Direct /focusing type cookers uses solar radiation directly in the cooking process
whereas indirect cookers use a heat transfer fluid to transfer the heat from the
collector to the cooking unit. (Mbodji & Hajji, 2017; Muthusivagami, Velraj, &
Sethumadhavan, 2010). Solar cookers are like the ones illustrated in the figure
below.

Figure 6:Solar cooker technologies Source: (Regattieri, Piana, Bortolini, Gamberi,

& Ferrari, 2016) (a)Focusing type cooker(b) box solar cooker (c) indirect solar
cooker.

2.3.2 Solar cooking in Uganda

Solar cooking in Uganda is a new technology which dated back in 1994 when the
technology was first introduced by Solar Cookers Association (SCA) with support
from several organizations like World wildlife fund Switzerland and since then,
SCA has distributed over 50,000 cookers in Uganda, South Sudan, Eastern Congo,
and Burundi.

35
In Uganda today, several organizations, research institutions and the government
conducted many pilot projects and the most recent one is in Northern Uganda by
Solar Cooker Social Enterprises in their campaign called “Go Green” distributed
500 solar cookers to low income families in Northern Uganda with the aim to
supply solar cookers to refugees’ camp in Northern Uganda. (Solar Household
Energy, 2017). The box type design is the most suitable design because it can meet
up to 70% of cooking needs of a typical family, with the growing demand for
cooking fuel in Uganda, solar cookers can help make a difference.

Uganda has relatively high solar insolation of 5-6 kWh/ m2 /day with an average
of 8 sunshine hours per day indicating an excellent potential for solar energy use
for cooking, lighting, and electricity generation for rural population. (Uganda
Country Report, 2012).

2.3.3 Pros and cons to solar cooking technologies.

Solar cooking has a range of benefits since sunlight is free limited and costless
energy that can be exploited at any time the sky is clear, and this makes it available
even to the poor. Solar cooking generates efficient heat compared to coal and solid
fuel wood, thermal efficiency of about 65% compared to coal 15%. This means that
for daily cooking and water heating needs of an average rural family would be
met by about four hours of solar cooking. (Bonan, Pareglio, & Tavoni, 2017)

When using solar cookers, there is little efforts needed above all for women or
children who are charged with the responsibility of collecting firewood. This helps
in improving economic, social security and health for women and children.
(Bildirici & Özaksoy, 2016).

The environmental benefits of solar cooking are the contribution towards

forestalling deforestation. According to FAO report 2015, estimated that about 129
million hectares of forest has been lost since 1990 (the size of South Africa) and
this was mostly in South America and Africa (FAO, 2018) where majority of the
population rely on solid fuelwood for cooking. Deforestation and forest
degradation increases the concentration of greenhouse gases and all shoots into
the atmosphere which has the potential of climate change effects.

36
Emergencies such as creation of refugees’ camp can affect greatly on the forest
resources. For example, Uganda today has the 3rd largest refugees camp
accommodating refugees from South Sudan, Congo, and Somalia. (UNDP, 2017)
which is increasing the rate of deforestation more especially in Northern Uganda
where the camp is located due to increased energy demand of the increased
population.

Solar cooker can be used to purify drinking water more especially in developing
countries where there is lack of clean drinking water and this reduces the number
of annual deaths from diarrhea, cholera and other water borne diseases especially
among children. According to the estimate by World Health Organization about 2
billion people lack access to clean drinking water source and 842,000 annual
deaths are attributed to water borne diseases mostly by children under the age of
5 years. (Regattieri et al., 2016; WHO, 2018).

However Solar cookers are no longer presented as a total solution to cooking

problems, they are being promoted as an add on cooking device with specific
possible benefits and offering more choice and flexibility to users whom are
normally forced to use a fuel because of affordability and accessibility. To enable
large scale utilization of this form of energy, there is a need to develop effective
technology with thermal storage and at reasonable capital and running cost. This
subject has attracted a lot of research in the past years. (Cuce & Cuce, 2013; Joshi
& Jani, 2015; Mbodji & Hajji, 2017; Muthusivagami et al., 2010; Saxena et al., 2011).

The thermal energy storage options must be provided with solar cookers to allow
late evening/night cooking and the limitation of solar cookers during off sunshine
hours. (Vaccari, Vitali, & Tudor, 2017).

Despites all the advantages of solar cooking, it’s upsetting to have lists to its
downsides and they are legion.
One main problem of solar cooker is the cost, although cheap to manufacture can
be very expensive to the poorest of the planet even small cost can be too high a
price. (Bonan et al., 2017; MacClancy, 2015). And Solar cooking is an unexpected

37
idea to many people, so persuading them to invest their part of the meager budget
in a novel technology is not an easy task.

Furthermore, if provided by NGOs people tend not to respect and care for the
solar cookers. A cost sharing idea is necessary for one wants to own a solar cooker
because they will have to invest partly something of their own. (Otte, 2014)

Furthermore, the position of the cooker must be adjusted every hour to take the
advantage of the sun rays. (Otte, 2014). Unlike open fires or stoves, solar cookers
do not give sun or heat, and this deprives users source of light and a warmth
hearth and a repellent to insects which may otherwise be attracted to food
preparation areas.

Most forms of solar cookers are very slow, and this may disrupt domestic day to
day activities and are suitable for only some style of cooking e.g. baking and
greatly depend on the weather for example its very unreliable in cloudy days.
(Geddam, Dinesh, & Sivasankar, 2015)

The main obstacles to solar cooking technology is cultural, it’s about the way
people prepare food, cook, and eat which is central and they are not ready to
change that culinary style. Training cooks to switch to solar cooking is culturally
sensitive and its takes time and expensive for the project conversion. But it can be
easily adopted in places where people have no options especially where there is
scarcity of cooking fuel and a case in point is Northern Uganda.

2.4 Small scale /mini PV solar systems

Small scale PV solar is defined as the power system that do not feed in to national
grid. This technology ranges from individual lights of a few watts up to 2000 wp
of hybrid systems for a whole village or institutions. It can be offered either as
village grids, home solar systems, or battery lamp leasing. Village systems would
use solar power connected to central bank batteries and a control system
supplying power to several households. (Sharma, Palit, & Krithika, 2016)

38
2.4.1 Photovoltaics
Photovoltaics (PV) convert directly solar energy to electricity in a solid-state
device made from silicon based on photovoltaic effects. (Feron, 2016). It consists
of an arrangement of several components such as solar panel to absorb and
convert sunlight into electricity, a solar inverter to change DC to AC, integrated
battery, and a solar tracking system. (Pokakul & Ketjoy, 2016; BARMAN, 2011;
Sabine de Bruin).

PV solar systems may be used in different ways for example technological

solutions ranging from very small applications such as Solar Pico Systems (SPS)
(i.e., one to 10 watts, used for lightning to replace kerosene lamps) to mid-scale
solutions like Solar Home Systems (SHS) with a capacity of a 10–130 watts peak
or even up to a 250 watts peak installed in some households. (Feron, 2016;
Fransson, 2010).
Solar Home System can supply energy to several lamps, a radio and TV with
energy. In addition to PV cells, other accessories like batteries, an inverter (to
convert DC into AC) and a charge controller (to regulate the charge from a solar
panel into a deep cycle battery bank and this may make the system more expensive
(Ulsrud, Winther, Palit, Rohracher, & Sandgren, 2011; NATIONS, 2010) which
make it suitable for only richer households. (Bhattacharyya, 2016).

According to Feron (2016) an estimated 6 million SHS has been installed today
worldwide including African countries (as compared to 1.3 million systems in
2002), although significant data gaps only allow for indicative numbers (Boardley,
2013).

2.4.2 PV solar in Uganda

The use of solar technology has steadily grown since 2004 with handful of solar
companies, NGOs and Government supporting solar projects. Since then, an
estimated 30,000 solar PV system has been installed across the country (Ulrich
Elmer Hansen, 2014) mainly in schools, hospitals, health centers, administrative
offices, and businesses. (Enclude BV, 2014). The historical growth in PV solar
technology has been facilitated by many factors such as:

39
 • Favorable regulatory policies for example Uganda energy and renewable
energy policies that encourages investment and trade in solar technologies
and providing financing(credit) mechanisms to diversify renewable
energy resources and technologies. (MEMD,2007)
• Government projects and programs like for the use of PV solar for rural
electrification(PVTMA), Energy for Rural Transformation (ERT), the Rural
Electrification Strategy and Plan and the Promotion of Renewable Energy
and Energy Efficiency Program (PREEEP).(Tumwesigye et al., 2011,
Okure, 2009, Whitley and Tumushabe, 2014).
• The growth in telecommunication sector mainly driven by the growth in
the number of mobile phone users in Uganda. (Ulrich Elmer Hansen, 2014)
• National awareness programs facilitated by donor support.
• The demand for reliable modern energy services by the expanding middle-
income population and lack of reliable modern energy to households more
especially the rural population.

2.4.3 PV Solar potential in Uganda

Uganda has an average daily solar insolation of 5-6 kWh/ m2 /day, with an
estimated solar electrical power potential of 200MW (MEMD, 2007) with adequate
sunlight throughout the year (Uganda Country Report, 2012), and this can support
the use of solar technology, but the resource is not fully exploited and not widely
used.
In 2009 an estimate of 1.1 MWp of solar PV system was installed nationwide which
include both institutional and home systems. Solar home system has one of the
biggest solar potential in Uganda. (Enclude BV, 2014; Ulrich Elmer Hansen, 2014).
But, the technology is still being hampered by several challenges like high upfront
cost and inadequate financing mechanisms, the quality of the technology is also a
very big problem, transportation cost as many of the potential buyers are in the
rural areas of Uganda and lack of after sales services, high default risk when pre-
financing the products, limited solar purchasing points and brand awareness as
households needs support to make an informed decision. (Chaurey & Kandpal,
2010; Enclude BV, 2014) and to promote the technology, the government and solar
providers should address the above issues.

40
It should be noted that, approximately 31 million people in Uganda live without
electricity but mainly rely on energy sources of light like kerosene, candles,
biomass, and other non -electric sources, (Sanchez et al., 2013) with health and
safety implications such as chronic illness due to indoor air pollution and high-
risk injuries due to flammable nature of the fuels use. (Barman, 2011; Matungwa,
2014). Kerosene lamps emit fine particles that are a major source of air pollution
and this impact greatly on the economy and the quality of life leading to low
productivity, higher health care costs, lower life expectancy and respiratory issues.
(Enclude BV, 2014; Sabine de Bruin).

2.4.4 Mini-grid systems

Mini-grid can be used for sparsely populated small cluster and scattered
households. Mini grid is typically in the range of 10KW-10MW capacity which can
serve typically 20-400 households and they are technically cost effective when
many people can be connected within a radius of 1 km. (Muchunku, Ulsrud, Palit,
& Jonker-Klunne, 2018).

2.4.5 Solar home systems

Solar Home Systems provide huge benefits to the people in rural communities
where national grid electricity is not available. These systems are available from
10–60 Wp and the prices vary depending on the size and the complexity of the
system. However, the costs of these systems are typically higher and cannot be
afforded by low-income rural inhabitants for a onetime payment. (Ranaweera,
Kolhe, & Gunawardana, 2016) Therefore, several loan schemes and business
models have been made available to make these systems viable for rural low-
income families in Uganda. (Muchunku et al., 2018)

In Uganda, households use both fixed solar systems and mobile solar systems. The
fixed solar home system is of more than 20 watts and the reason for the high use
is because of government subsidies provided through the PVTMA (Solar PV
Targeted Marketing Approach) part of the world bank financial program for rural
electrification and the market efforts by solar companies. These solar products are
mainly used to light home, charge phones at home, studying in the night for school
going children and watching tv. Households with access to PV- solar still use

41
kerosene interchangeably and other fuels like traditional biomass as cooking fuel,
so the use has no significance impact on indoor air quality.

Consequently, it’s important to combine solar PV marketing campaign with

awareness programs on efficient cooking technologies and other efficient and
clean energy options like biogas, bio-oil, bio-briquettes, and solar cooker
technologies. (energypedia, 2018) And, there is no doubt that PV-solar has high
potential in providing affordable, sustainable, reliable and emission free source of
energy (light) to households in Uganda enhances lives, livelihoods and mitigate
environmental degradation and climate change.

2.5 Conclusions
An option for the future is to integrate different fuel sources to create a more
efficient households energy mix using solar and modern bio-energy to produce
multiple outputs. However, some of these technologies serve specific purposes
better than others but they have high potential in providing affordable,
sustainable, reliable and emission free sources of energy to households in
Northern Uganda. The Pros and cons/barriers of these technologies are
summarized in the table below.

42
Table 1: Pros and Cons/barriers of modern biomass, solar cookers, and small-
scale PV solar technologies.

Technologies Pros Cons/Barriers

Bio-oil -Environmentally friendly -The technology is not fully
-alternative for light and developed in Uganda (Technical
cooking barrier)
-source of income to rural -Sustainability concern (food vs
households fuel)
-diversification of the economy -Environmental degradation-due to
-option for rural electrification clearing of forest to get land for
feedstocks production.
-Change of land usage
-Food insecurity

Bio-pellets/Briquettes -Cheap and abundance -Low density heat

feedstocks - Direct combustion causes smoke
-Reduce the emission of and indoor air pollution (negative
hydrocarbon, methane, carbon health implication)
if the feedstock is from -High investment cost for the
sustainable source. technology(machine)
-Alternative fuel for cooking - Lose it value when exposed to
-High calorific value compared moisture
to solid biomass.
-Reduce deforestation
-High environmental benefits
Biogas -Inexpensive -High upfront costs for installation
-Does not affect food -Prone to technical failures
production -Family size digester does not
-Reduce deforestation provide energy for many hours.
-Reduce time spent by women -The requirement limitation for
and children collecting family digester-a family should
firewood. have 2-8 herds of cattle is not

43
 -Enhance soil nutrient from favorable to the poorest rural
using bio-slurry members of the society.
-Option rural electrification
Solar cookers/Solar cooking -Less costly technology -Costly to the poor
Technology -Environmentally -Does not give light
friendly technology -Very slow cooking process
-Control deforestation -Very unreliable during bad
-Reduce time spent by women weather and cannot cook food in
and children collecting the night
firewood.
-Health benefit as it does not
emit smoke particulates

Small scale PV solar -Clean and cheap technology -Costly to the poor
technology -Health benefit as its smokeless -High upfront cost
-Environmentally -Dose not provide light 24/7
friendly technology since it’s a without a battery.
renewable source of energy. -Its greatly affected by bad weather

Source: Authors own work.

On the aspect of the above alternative solution technologies, they are all possible
from a technical point of view however the largest issue regarding success of these
solutions is the socio-economic factors behind it, among others are lack of technical
expertise, knowledge, infrastructure and all these technologies can be introduced
and adopted by households in Northern Uganda.

44
CHAPTER 3: METHODS AND METHODOLOGY

The main aim of the study is to create awareness and introduce small scale modern
biomass, solar cookers/solar cooking technology, and small-scale PV solar
technologies to households in Rural Northern Uganda. These sustainable
technologies could be used for cooking and lighting. The study identifies existing
problem of household’s energy consumptions/use and proposes possible
solutions with the goal to minimize and achieve better outcome in controlling
problems associated with the current technologies being used in the study area for
example negative environmental, health and economic consequences. The study
adopted a case -study approach to best understand the impact of energy
intervention on the household of northern Uganda.

The study was heavily dependent on both primary and secondary data,
quantitative and qualitative data and this approach of mixed research data was
chosen because of the numerous benefits as discussed for example (Joop J. Hox,
2005).Survey using structured questionnaire form the basis for primary data
collection .It is where the basis of formulating objectives and research questions
for the study and the perceived needs and problems associated with meeting the
household energy needs of the people of Uganda is centered. A multi-
dimensionally of data including fuel use and technologies were considered such
as bio-oil, bio-briquettes, pellets, biogas, solar cooking technology and PV solar
technologies.

Based on the existing and locally available energy sources (include biomass and
solar technologies) and the way people use them formed the main purpose of
information collection, the methodology was developed and used in a way that
the target people feel comfortable to participate in the data collection process.
Their social attitudes, economic situations, cultural behavior, and technical aspects
were put under consideration during data collection process.

45
Literature review was used extensively for both qualitative and qualitative studies
of the selected technologies. Specific literatures required to understand this topic
included scientific papers, government publications and reports and books on the
topic. This information was sourced from Google, Google scholars, government
websites, Science Direct and the SDU Library services using key words related to
the topic of the study for example Bio-oil feedstocks, bio-pellets, bio-briquettes,
solar cookers, biogas, developing countries, indoor air pollution, cost benefit
analysis, DPISR framework and among others.

3.1 Research Design

The research was designed to utilize both quantitative and qualitative methods of
data collection to enable the researcher to get a wider range of information and
quality data related to the study. (Perri & Bellamy, 2012)
A total of 124 structured questionnaires with both closed and open-ended
questions were used to gather information. The target group who are the
household’s heads were interview based on random selection. The researcher
moved from door to door interviewing the target group who are willing to
participate in the study and they were mostly women.
3.2. Instruments and procedure of data collection
The methods included in this study were questionnaires survey and participant
observation.
3.2.1 Questionnaire Administration
After sample selection, the appropriateness of the draft questionnaire was tested
by conducting a ´pretesting` survey. The questionnaire was based on the
objectives and theoretical framework set out for the study and the draft
questionnaire was later modified accordingly and some other elements and news
ideas were included. The questionnaire was designed in English and a training
was done to the research assistants before going to the field and the questionnaires
were checked and verified in the field by the field supervisor. This yielded a better
result (Perri & Bellamy, 2012)

In the sample of 124 households from 4 districts of Northern Uganda (Gulu,

Amuru, Nwoya and Omoro) were selected at random for interviewing and it was
based on two social classes (urban and rural). These two social classes use different

46
sources of energy for cooking and lighting based on availability and affordability.
These social classes were selected based on the difference in infrastructure (urban
households live in semi-permanent or permanent building) while rural
households live in grass thatched huts. The sample selection in the four districts
are shown in the table below.
Table 2: The distribution of sample size of households in the study area.

Districts Urban Rural

Gulu 24 20
Omoro - 30
Nwoya 15 15
Amuru 15 15
Total 124

3.2.2 Participant Observation

This was used to fill the gaps apparent in the interview methods for example some
socio-economic and cultural issues that can only be noticed by observing the
respondents’ behavior rather than asking straight forward questions (Gill,
Stewart, Treasure, & Chadwick, 2008). During the interview process, the
interviewer observes the respondent behavior and take notes of the relevant
information. Besides interviewing through a predesigned questionnaire together
with participatory observation yield better data quality.
3.3 Methods of data analysis
In this study there were various methods and procedures used for data analysis,
the application of a certain procedure and methods were based on several factors
like nature of the problem, the purpose of the study, the instrument used, and the
data collected.
Both descriptive statistics and econometric analysis methods were adopted.
Descriptive statistics was used to describe relevant aspects of observable facts
about the variables and provided detailed information about each relevant
variable. At this stage, percentage, mean, standard deviation, maximum and
minimum of the required variables were computed. (Sandelowski, 2000a)

47
Different methods of data analysis were used which was determined by the
different objective of investigation, in most cases data from household’s heads
were tabulated in the form of frequency and computed using simple percentages.
Items in the questionnaire with rank orders, were tabulated by using mean scale.
For quantitative data analysis SSPS Software was used to estimate and analyze the
determinant of adoption of modern biomass, solar cooking, and small-scale PV
solar technologies. The result of the two methods of data analysis were combined
at the interpretive level and they data set remained analytically separate from the
others as described by (Sandelowski, 2000b)
3.4 Challenges/Limitation
As with any information gathering, there were numerous challenges encountered
during the data collection.:
Accurate information on key issues was a challenge like household income.
Households income is a key measurement in the energy assessment as it allows
for the calculation of proportional expenditure on fuel. However, majority of the
population in Northern Uganda heavily rely on agriculture. Income from
agriculture is seasonal and varied and most households record income over time.
Often, households are not aware of income level and responses are normally
estimates.
One other problem was the questions were written in English, but the interview
was conducted in the Local language spoken by the sample population and this
might have caused interpretation error during the data collection.
Technology failure was one of the challenges the research team experience, as they
were to use geo-mark application to track the location of the places for data
collection but in some places the application failed to work because of lack of
internet connection, remoteness, and infrastructural problems.
3.5 Ethical consideration
Ethical consideration was made regarding household’s data collection. For
example, question asked were framed in a way that interviewee felt comfortable
and their identity was kept confidential and anonymous. Every interview started
with a summary of the study and its objectives. Informed consent was required,
the participants were given time to decide if they want to be part of the study and
they were free to stop at any time should they feel they wanted to stop half way
into the interview process.

48
CHAPTER 4: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
This chapter discusses frameworks that can be used by policy makers and
stakeholders in understanding and assessing the need for and benefits of
household energy intervention on private individuals and the society while
considering sustainability aspects based on the environmental and human welfare
impacts. Two conceptual frameworks are discussed in this chapter, the first
conceptual framework is the DPSIR framework which is based on the effects of
energy need of the people of Northern Uganda since their only source of energy
is derived from forest resources and this has great impact on forest resource and
human welfare.
The second framework is the CBA framework, and this handle the problem
identified in DPSIR framework to form part of the intervention to solve the
problem. The framework discusses benefits and costs associated with household’s
energy intervention. The frameworks are discussed below.

4.1. The Driver Pressure State Impact Response (DPSIR) Framework.

The driver pressure state impact response framework is a tool use to model the
cause effect relationships between environment and human system process to
develop appropriate management response. The DPSIR framework was
developed in the late 1990s after it was proposed by the Organization of Economic
Co-operation and Development. (Bell, 2012; Ness, Anderberg, & Olsson, 2010; Sun
et al., 2016; Tscherning, Helming, Krippner, Sieber, & Paloma, 2012). And since
then there are several research and studies carried out to assess the relationship
between human impacts and environment for example, (Bidone & Lacerda, 2004;
Lin, Huang, & Budd, 2013; O´Higgins, 2015).

Drivers are social, economic, and environmental development that arises from
human needs to satisfy their primary needs (food, energy, water, shelter) and
secondary requirements (mobility, entertainment, culture). (Sekovski, Newton, &
Dennison, 2012), which exert pressure and causes certain environmental change
because of production and consumption such as an excessive use of resources and
emission into the environment. These pressures result in state of the
environmental changes leading to impact on human welfare (social, economic or
environment) which lead to social response. Response present a set of societal and

49
policy makers prioritization with the aim to reduce the undesired impacts as much
as possible. (Sekovski et al., 2012) The response maybe feed to drivers, pressures,
state, or impacts. (O´Higgins, 2015; Tscherning et al., 2012)

For this study, the DPSIR framework is developed based on the integration of
social, economic, and environmental information to best understand the external
factors effects of household’s consumption of solid biomass source of energy on
the environment and human welfare of the population of Uganda based on local
perspective. (Northern Uganda). The table below gives detailed analysis of the
DPSIR framework .
Table 3: Description of elements considered in the DPSIR framework

Driver Pressure State Impact Response

1.Cooking(energy)
Alternative
sources of energy
Firewood Forest -Loss in diversity -Soil erosion and
resources - Decrease in forest loss of -Promotion of agro-
cover soil nutrients. forestry and tree
-Indoor air quality -Low crop yields. farming.
-Los of sources of -Create awareness and
livelihood. promote other clean
-Environmental alternative sources of
degradation fuel
-Climate change
-Health
implications

Charcoal Forest -Loss of diversity -Soil erosion and -High taxes on charcoal
resources -Decrease in forest loss of businesses
cover soil nutrients. -Promotion of agro-
-Low crop yields. forestry and tree
-Loss of sources of farming
livelihood.

50
 -Environmental -Create awareness and
degradation promote other clean
-Climate change alternative sources of
-Health fuel.
implications -Introduce efficient
technology of charcoal
burning
Biogas - - -Clean source of -Subsidies
energy to households
-Improve crop -Good credit and
yield using bio- favourable financing
slurry. mechanisms.
-Environmentally -Donor funded
friendly programs towards the
dissemination of biogas
-Good credit and
favourable financing
mechanisms.
Biofuel - Land -Low -Food security -Incentive to food
-Forest food production -Environmental production
resources -High use degradation
of agro-chemical - Loss of diversity
-Deforestation -Loss of sources of
livelihood.
-pollution due to
agro-chemicals
-Health
implication

Bio- - - - -Step up village scale

briquettes/pellets factory.

Solar cookers - - - -Donor funded projects

51
 - Good credit and
favourable financing
mechanisms.
Source: Authors own work. (2018)

Energy need for cooking is the main driver that leads to household’s meeting this
demand by using solid fuel in terms of (firewood and charcoal) and this demand
greatly affect the forest resources leading to deforestation which negatively affect
human welfare in a number of ways for example (i)soil erosion and loss of soil
nutrients leading to poor crop yields, (ii)sources of livelihood are destroyed more
especially for rural population who depend on fruits from the forest,(iii) negative
effects on water resources leading to drying of streams and wells and (iv)
destroying building materials because not every rural households has a roof over
their head.(Gibson, 2018). Deforestation causes global warming effects and climate
change as trees that could have been used for carbon capture are destroyed and
this leads to long run effects on human welfare. (Andrew K. Jorgenson, 2007).

Biofuel as an alternative sustainable source of fuel has also adverse effects on

human welfare for example (i)change in land use and clearing of forest as large
chunk of land is required to grow energy crops leading to deforestation, (ii)food
insecurity and (iii)environmental pollutions due to the high use of agro-chemicals.
(NEMA, 2010).

Other alternative sources of energy like biogas, bio-pellets, bio-briquettes are bio-
wastes from biomass which has no negative environmental impacts and does not
cause deforestation. Solar cookers use energy from the sun and this does not affect
forest resources in any way. The energy drive can be best solved by disseminating
alternative sources of renewable energy technologies which has no negative
environmental impacts.

4.2 Cost- Benefit Analysis Framework (CBA)

Cost benefit analysis is a technique intended to help in social decision making
specially to facilitate more efficient allocation of society’s resources. This help
policy makers in making decision to improve the quality of public policy

52
decisions. (Boardman, 2001).” quality means the measure of social wellbeing that
policy convey to the society”.
In recent years there has been increasing attentions devoted to the cost benefit
analysis associated with interventions in households cooking systems in
developing countries for example (Wesley Foell a & 2011; NG Bruce, 2011) and
these interventions are very attractive both from the health, and climate
perspective. (Hutton, with, & Organization, 2006).

The WHO conducted the first cost-benefit analysis(CBA) at the global level
analyzing several interventions on household cooking systems for 11 developing
countries and middle income. (Hutton et al., 2006). The assessment included not
only health benefits and costs, but also local (fewer trees cut) and global (reduced
CO2 and methane emissions) environmental benefits. The cost benefit framework
CBA framework was extended and conducted under a “household perspective”
analysis of improved cookstove system interventions in distinct settings in Kenya,
Sudan, and Nepal. (Hutton et al., 2006). The assessment was based on specific local
circumstances and the studies yielded result suggesting a range of cooking
systems interventions. (Sameer Patel a, 2016; Wesley Foell a & 2011).

For this study household’s energy intervention was taken from the local
perspective (Northern Uganda´s perspectives), the CBA evaluation is based on
estimation of cost as well as co-benefits in terms of fuel wood saving, health
benefits(DALYS), environmental conservation at the local level and greenhouse
gas emissions based on the framework developed by GTZ (the German Technical
Cooperation) (GTZ, Helga Habermehl, 2007) for dissemination of energy saving
stoves in Uganda. The economic value here was used to identify, attach value, and
compare the cost and benefits of alternative modern technologies namely family-
size biogas and solar cookers. One thing that distinguishes this study from the one
carried out by GTZ is that, the energy intervention is to replace the use of charcoal
and firewood by introducing clean alternatives sources of fuels. The reason for the
choice of only two alternatives technologies was that, those are the alternatives
can be linked to private individual/households, other alternatives like liquid
biofuel, briquettes and bio-pellets require a village scale factory which is
associated with high cost of investment. The table below shows the elements

53
considered in the CBA to help solve the problem of over dependence on solid
biofuel identified in DPSIR framework.
Table 4: Elements considered in the CBA

Criteria Sub-criteria Description

Total cost
a) Direct cost Capital One-time investment associated with fuel
transition. This includes the cost of new stove,
security deposits and required installation and
training costs
Operation cost of preparation, procurement, and storage of
fuel
Maintenance Cost of repairs or servicing of cooking system
b) Indirect
cost
Ecological integrity Incorporate fuel pollution effects of traditional
energy technology
Global warming GWP include pollutants generated throughout the
potential (GWP) life cycle of fuel related to waste disposal.
Waste management Cost related to waste management
c) Total Health Both acute and chronic health effects caused by
benefit exposure to emission (indoor pollutants)
emission.
Time saving Time opportunity cost as times saved could be
-collecting firewood used to earn money or engaged in other activities.
-cooking
Fatigue/frustration is Labour required for fuel procurement,
reduced preparation, and use.
d) Associated sustainability Degree of renewability of each fuel which
with fuel depends on the reserves and consumption rates.
type
e) Environmental -GHG emission reduction
-Economic values of local forest areas

54
 Supply and Depends on resource availability and the
accessibility distribution network
Alternative uses Use of the fuel for purposes other than cooking
and lighting for example space heating purpose.
Employment Jobs created for the supply, distribution network,
opportunities sales, and repairs of these technologies.
Source: Authors on work adopted from (Sameer Patel a, 2016)

4.2.1. General assumptions

4.2.1.1. Avoided fuel cost and reduced firewood collection time
The CBA considers the avoided fuel cost and reduced firewood collection time
derived from using alternative modern energy technologies.
• Fuelwood savings were valued with the average market price of firewood
when firewood was purchased, and at a shadow price when firewood was
collected.
• The shadow price of firewood collected was based on the average amount
of firewood collected per hour (5kg) (Helga Habermehl, 2007).
• The market price is 0.080 EUR per kg of fuelwood. The shadow price of
one kg of fuelwood was 0.09 EUR.
• Market price for charcoal was 0.15EUR/kg
• The assumption was that 50% of fuelwood bought and 50% collected,
mean household size of 5.5 in the region. (UBOS, 2017)
• Collected fuelwood was valued at shadow price based on the mean
monthly income of households in the study area while purchased fuel
wood was based on market price of fuelwood in 2016 in the study area
• The amount of charcoal was converted by a factor of 9 (9 kg fuelwood= 1
kg of charcoal). (energypedia.info/wiki/Uganda_Energy_Situation, 2018).
• A shadow wage was assigned to 50% of the saved time. It is assumed that
even if the household member was not being able to transfer the time saved
directly into money making activities, that time could have been used to
engage in productive activities like farming, house chores, child caring
hence improving the family wellbeing.
• A monetary value was assigned called “shadow wage” and this was
derived from average monthly income of a household in the study area

55
 (UBOS, 2017) which amounted to 43.98EUR/ month based on assumption
that two household’s members make that money in 30 days and in 8
hrs./day (García-Frapolli et al., 2010)

• Shadow wage was 0.09 EUR/hr.

• The corresponding shadow price of firewood collected was 0.09EUR/kg.
4.2.1.2 Benefits due to better health
This is based on averted Disability adjusted life year, however due to lack of data,
DALYS was not calculated by the author. However reduced time saved due to not
falling sick and reduced burn cases because of using traditional energy
technologies was considered and this was based on the assumptions that:

• Households who switched to clean alternative energy technologies, will

no longer suffer from acute respiratory diseases, eyes diseases and
reduction in burn cases.

• on average a household loses 8 hours in a year due to burn of family

members,80 hours due to acute respiratory diseases, and 16 hours due to
eyes problems. (García-Frapolli et al., 2010)

• a monetary value (shadow wage) of 50% of the time saved due to better
health benefit was assigned to time saved from health benefit.

4.2.1.3 Benefits due to greenhouse gas emissions reduction

The impact of greenhouse gas emission of charcoal and firewood reduction was
considered due to the use of alternative modern energy technologies (bio-oil, bio
briquettes, bio-pellets, biogas, and solar cookers).

• A monetary value was assigned to the amount of emissions of carbon and

methane gases caused by the combustion of fuelwood. The conversion
factor of 1500 g of carbon for 1 kilogram of fuelwood burnt and methane
emission factor of 4g for 1 kg fuel wood burnt.

• The economic value assumed based on EUA cost of 1 tonne of CO2 avoided
according to closing of the 04/2018 at 15.11 EUR (Insider, 2018)

• For methane emission no emission price exists but was assumed that 20
times higher price than carbon emission derived from 20 times higher

56
 potency of methane compared to carbon. The corresponding value was
302.2EUR per ton CH4.

4.2.1.4 Benefits due to preservation of the district forest resources

This was based on the following hypotheses:

• 10% of fuelwood consumed for cooking purposes comes from felling of

forest cover and this means a 10% savings preserve forest resources. The
value of forest reserve equal to assumed afforestation cost of 0.0352
EUR/kg of firewood.

• This was derived from the average afforestation cost of a forest plantation
of 1.2 million Ush/ha (NFA, 2018) based on average stock density of 17
cubic metres per hectare of forest cover and average wood weight of 850
per solid cubic metre. Losses derived from unmarketable wood species or
destruction from fire were not taken into consideration in the calculation
for afforestation cost.

4.3.1 Alternative approach to CBA

An alternative approach to CBA was used to investigate return on private
investment of two alternative modern technologies-biogas and solar cookers.

Net present value(NPV) and internal rate return(IRR) was used and the discount
rate adopted for calculation was 5% and 10% for every alternative sources of
energy.

(https://www.google.com/search?)

Where: NPV is the net present value of the revenue accrued at time t (t=1,2,3…….
years), Ct is the cost incurred at time t and i is the discount rate. IRR criteria was
used to reflects the profitability of the project, when its greater than the standard
financial cut off discount rate (i), the financial analysis of the project can be
accepted. (Gwavuya, Abele, Barfuss, Zeller, & Müller, 2012)

57
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS OF COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
This chapter presents the result of cost and benefit of households’ energy
interventions described in chapter 4
5.1 Benefits
5.1.1 Fuel cost and time saved
Table 5: Fuel wood and charcoal saving from alternative sources of clean
technologies

Annual Using Saving using Total fuel for all Total fuel saving
fuel consumption traditional alternative households using Local (Northern
per household stove modern and clean clean energy Uganda´s perspective)
and total annual (three stones technologies technology 150,700 households
savings and metal (124) households (tones)
charcoal
stoves)
Firewood 2,044 kg 2,044 kg 253,456kg 308,036.8
charcoal 444 kg 444 kg 55,056 kg 66,910.8
Source: authors own work (2018)

Based on the assumption that 50% firewood was purchased and 50% collected
which amounts to fuelwood saving. A shadow price was introduced to the saved
fuel.
Table 6: Economic benefits for fuelwood saved

Total annual fuel Total annual fuel Total annual fuel

saved per household saved by sample saved northern
(EUR) population(EUR) Uganda
perspective(EUR)
Economic benefits 93.96 11,651.0 14,159,772
on fuelwood saved

5.1.2 Benefits on reduced cooking time.

Based on several studies on household energy intervention for energy saving
stoves, it was found that an average cooking hour per household was reduced by
1.82 hours per day when using energy saving stoves. This means the women will

58
spend 1.82 hours less in the kitchen based on the assumption that 25% of this
reduction time is 0.455 hour per day and this could be considered saved. The total
time saved per household amounted to 166.075 p. a. A 50% time saved was
assigned monetary value (Shadow wage).

Table 7: Total annual cooking time saved and corresponding economic benefits

Household The sample population Northern

perspective (124) Uganda
perspective (150,700)
Total Annual time 166,075 20,593.3 25,027,502,280
saved(hours)
Economic benefit 7.473 926.652 1,126,181.1
corresponding to time
saved(EUR)

5.3 Benefits due to preservation of the district forest resources

Based on the assumption that 10% firewood used for cooking comes from forest
felling hence a saving of 10%. The mean market price for forest is 0.0352 EUR/kg
of fuelwood consumed.

Table 8: Total annual benefit due to preservation of district forest

Per Sample population Northern Uganda

household perspective (124) (EUR) (EUR)
(EUR
Annual Benefits due to 0.72 89.28 108,504
preservation of district
forest

5.4 Health Benefit

The author`s assumption was based on studies on energy saving due to energy
saving stoves. Households annually lost 80 hours due to respiratory problems,16

59
hours to eyes problem and 8 hours to burn, however with the adoption of
alternative clean technologies all the time spent will be saved amounting to 104
hours year per households. However, only 50% of the time saved was assigned
monetary value (shadow wage) to health benefit as described in chapter 4.
Table 9: Total annual time saved due to health and corresponding economic
benefits

Household The sample population Northern

perspective (124) Uganda
perspective (150,700)
Annual time 104 12,896 7,836,400
saved(hours)
Economic benefit 4.68 58.032 705,276
corresponding to time
saved(EUR)

5.2.4 Tons of carbon emission saved from energy intervention

The conversion factor of 1.50kg of CO2 for each kilogram fuelwood burned and
CH4 emission factor of 4g for 1 kg fuel wood was assigned. The economic value
assumed based on one tonne of CO2 avoided equals to the traded EUA for one
tonne of CO2 according to the lowest closing of 15.10 Euro. For methane emission,
no emission price exists but was assumed that 20 times higher price than carbon
emission derived from 20 times higher potency of methane compared to carbon.
The corresponding value was 302.6 EUR per ton methane.

Table 10: Total annual CO2 and CH4 emission saved

Per Sample population Northern Uganda

household perspective (124) (EUR) (EUR)
(EUR
Annual emission saved 2,520.35 312,523.1 379,816,745

60
Table 11: Summary of economic benefits considered in the CBA

Economic benefits considered Economic benefit Economic Total economic

(valued at shadow price and shadow per benefits in benefit (EUR)
wage) Household(EUR) EUR (124) northern Uganda
households
1. Benefits due to fuel savings 93.96 11,651.04 14,159,772
2.Benefit due to reduced cooking 7.473 926.652 1,126,181.10
time
3.Benefit due to better health 4.68 58.032 705,276
4.Benefit due to preserving district 0.72 89.28 108,504
forest
5.Benefits due to reduction in CO2 2,520.35 312,523.10 379,816,745
and CH4 emission
Total economic saving 2627.183 325,248.10 398,916,478.1
Source: Authors own work (2018)

5.3 The scope of CBA

5.3.1 Time horizon

The CBA was conducted based on two alternative technologies, biogas (20 years
life span) and solar cookers (10 years)
All benefits and cost were discounted to the beginning of 2018 based on the year
of the study.

5.3.2 General assumptions

Economic analysis was based on the hypotheses that the values of the considered
alternative clean technologies like price and fuel saving rate will remain constant
in future from 2018. They will be replaced after their average life span.
Discount rates of 5% and 10% p.a was applied to every technology.

61
5.3.3 Costs of intervention of alternative technologies
Table 12: Cost of intervention for biogas and solar cooker

cost of intervention(EUR) Biogas Solar

cooker
capital and installation 963.1 300.14
Annual maintenance 38.35 12.86
Depreciation 38.35 -
Total cost 1039.8 313
Source: Authors own work (2018)

5.3.4 Results from NPV and IRR calculation

Table 13: Result of NPV and IRR

NPV 5% 10% IRR Benefit/cost

ratio
Biogas 963.97 954.00 8% 1.09
Solar cooker 516.23 531.20 13% 0.5
Source: Authors own work (2018)

From the above table, the result for both technologies shows positive net present
values at 5% and 10% interest rate and IRR of 8% for biogas and 13% for solar
cookers. Based on the cost benefit ratio biogas both technologies are better options
for private investment, the cost benefit ratio was 1.09 and 0.5 respectively.
This is promising for private households because their investment will pay off.
However, making a onetime investment maybe very difficult for majority of
households in the study area since 67% live below the international poverty line.
The author recommends a subsidy led program, donor funded program, cost
sharing, access to loan and government funded programs.

62
5.3.5 Conclusions
There has been critically lack of in depth cost benefit analysis based on detailed
and consistent data problems and this has affected the quality of the research work
however, it’s worth knowing that, this kind of intervention can benefit the
individual and society due to numerous benefits. For example:
(a) saved time for women which could be used to engage in other activities
hence improving their quality of life,
(b) health benefit due to reduction of indoor pollution and this help reduce
household and government expenditure on health,
(c) reduction on carbon and emission and this helps in controlling global
warming and climate change, reduced fuelwood consumption and this
help in preserving the forest resources.

63
CHAPTER 6: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF FIELD FINDINGS
This chapter presents the research finding based on primary data ascertained from
the field survey in four districts of Northern Uganda using questionnaires based
on 124 sample population.

6.1 Discussion of descriptive statistics of the survey results.

This information forms the basis for analysis of the sampled population in the
study area.

6.1.1 Gender of the respondents

Table 14: Demographic characteristics of respondents

Gender Number of respondents Percentage (%)

Male 41 33%
Female 83 67%
Total 124 100%
Source: field work finding (Interview)

The table above shows the result of 124 respondents distributed into 33% male and
67% female. Majority are women because men shy away from answering
questions related to cooking fuel. Therefore, this justifies the bigger percentage of
women interviewed.

64
6.1.2 Household size

Figure 7: Household size: own field work finding (2018)

The result shows households’ size of the 124 respondents interviewed,48 (39%) of
the household has 4 persons, 45 (36.3%) 7 persons, 19 (15.3%) 12 persons, 9 (7.4%)
more than 12 persons, and 3 (2%) household withheld the household’s size.
Household size determines the choice of cooking fuel and the amount of fuel
consumption. Large households tend to choose the cheapest source of fuel because
a larger share of their income is spent on food.

6.1.3 Income status of the households.

Income level considered in this study is to determine whether the target group can
afford alternative clean cooking technologies and if they cannot then proper
solutions are arranged. The result shows disparity in income level between rural
households and urban households because rural population primarily depend on
subsistence agriculture and they are not engage in income generating activities
which makes their income sources seasonal. The table below show the result of
income level with (52.8%) of those who live in rural areas having monthly income
between 10-50 USD and (34%), of urban households. However, majority of urban
households’ monthly income is between 121-160 USD since majority are engaged
in income activities (34%) The p value of the Chi square=0.006<0.05 thus there is a

65
significant relationship between the location of the respondent and their level of
income.

Table 15: Income status of the households based on location

Table 6: Location * Income level per month in USD Cross tabulation

Income level per month in USD Total
<=1 10- 121 200 51- N/ Other
0 50 - - 120 A specif
160 500 y
Loc R Count 1 38 6 4 19 3 1 72
ati ur % within 1.4 52. 8.3 5.6 26. 4.2 1.4% 100.0
on al Location % 8% % % 4% % %
% of 0.8 31. 4.9 3.3 15. 2.5 0.8% 59.0%
Total % 1% % % 6% %
U Count 0 17 17 6 10 0 0 50
rb % within 0.0 34. 34. 12. 20. 0.0 0.0% 100.0
a Location % 0% 0% 0% 0% % %
n % of 0.0 13. 13. 4.9 8.2 0.0 0.0% 41.0%
Total % 9% 9% % % %
Total Count 1 55 23 10 29 3 1 122
% within 0.8 45. 18. 8.2 23. 2.5 0.8% 100.0
Location % 1% 9% % 8% % %
% of 0.8 45. 18. 8.2 23. 2.5 0.8% 100.0
Total % 1% 9% % 8% % %
Source: authors own work (2018)

66
Figure 8: Households monthly income: Authors own work (2018)

6.1.4 Household energy consumption (cooking and light)

The figure below presents the main source of energy use for cooking by the
households of Northern Uganda.

Table 16: Clustered frequencies of the different sources of energy use for cooking
in the selected households

sources of energy for cooking households frequencies percentages

charcoal 70 56.5%
firewood 103 83.1%
briquettes 0 0%
pellets 0 0%
liquid biofuel 19 15.3%
biogas 0 0%

67
 solar cooker 0 0%
electricity 0 0%
others specify 0 0%
Source: field work finding (2018).

From the above table, 70 (56.5%) of the households chose charcoal as their main
source of energy for cooking, 103 (83.1%) of the households ticked firewood as
their main source of energy for cooking, 19 (15.3%) of the households ticked liquid
bio-fuel (bio-oil) as their main source of energy and none of the households ticked
bio-briquettes, biogas, solar cooker, and electricity as their main source of energy
for cooking. From the research finding, it is established that the main sources of
energy used for cooking in Northern Uganda are charcoal, firewood and liquid
bio-fuel (bio-oil). Firewood is mainly used in the rural area due to availability and
affordability as majority of the population lives in high level of poverty. Urban
households prefer charcoal due to ease of storage and transportation, bio-oil
because few households have started growing jatropha in their own farm. Other
sources of energy given in the options (Bio-briquettes, biogas, electricity, and solar
cooker) are disregarded by the households.

Table 17: Clustered frequencies of the different sources of energy use for lighting
in the selected households

Main sources of energy for Households Percentage (%)

lighting Frequencies
Biogas Nil 0%
Liquid fuel(paraffin) 76 61.3%
Micro Solar system 81 65.3%
Electricity 4 3.2%
Others 3 2.4%
Not specified 5 4%
Source: own work field finding (2018).

The above table shows that 76(61.3%) of the households use (paraffin) as their
main source of energy for lighting, 81 (65.3%) of the households use micro-solar
system(pico system) as their main source of energy for lighting, 4(3.4%) of the
households uses electricity, 3 (2.4%) of the households use other source (candles)

68
for lighting, none of the household identified biogas as its main source of lighting,
and finally, 5 (4%) of the households did not specify their main sources of energy
for lighting.

The most identified option is Micro-solar system as the main households’ source
of energy for lighting. Micro-solar system has been made available and affordable
to households in both urban and rural settings through numerous government
incentives programs towards rural electrification and the technology is favoured
by the constant amount of solar irradiation throughout the year in Northern
Uganda. (8 hours a day).

Second to Micro-solar system, the households also identified paraffin as their main
source of energy for lighting up to 76 (61.3%) of the respondents chose it and this
is because paraffin is economical.

4 (3.2%) of the households identified electricity as their main source of energy for
lighting. These households are all within urban setting. However, the
controversial point is that grid electricity has been connected to most of the urban
and rural settings, and yet it is the least main source of energy identified. This is
attributed to its irregularity, and high cost of monthly bill attached, therefore, most
household’s disregards electricity as their main source of lighting.

3 (2.4%) of the households added candles as their main source of energy for
lighting and 5 (4%) did not identify any alternative provided nor did they give
their other source of lighting.

6.1.4 Challenges faced by households due to the use of solid biomass

Table 18: Challenges faced by users of solid fuel in Northern Uganda

Challenges Number of the households Percentage (%)

Air pollution 75 60.5%

Cost 72 58.1%
Availability 60 48.4%
Quality of biomass 37 29.8%

Others 3 2.2%

69
 CHALLENGES BEING FACED BY
USERS OF BIOMASS ENERGY
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Air pollution Cost Availability Quality of Biomass

Figure 9: Challenges faced by households due to the use of solid biomass: Own
work (2018)

Since 98% of rural households in Northern Uganda depend on solid biofuel with
majority using three stones open fire systems, the result in the table above justifies
the corresponding numbers of households and their percentages.(60.5%)
households identified air pollution as the main challenge,58.1%) households
identified cost attached to the biomass energy as their challenge due to the
problem of fuel scarcity, charcoal and fuelwood are highly priced which makes it
unaffordable to the population who live below the international poverty line,
(48.4%) households identified availability of biomass energy as their challenge,
(29.8%) households identified quality of biomass, and finally, (2.2%) households
gave other reasons as their challenge of using biomass. All the factors identified
as challenges faced by households in Northern Uganda are because there is lack
of alternative sources of clean energy or the alternative sources are very expensive
for the population to afford. The general total number of households and their
percentages are not presented because of overlapping numbers of challenges
identified by the households as others chose more than one option.

70
6.1.5 Willingness to switch to affordable, clean, and modern energy
technologies
The table below shows the numbers and percentages of the household`s
willingness to switch to affordable, modern, and clean cooking and lighting
technology in Northern Uganda.

Table 19: Willingness to switch to affordable, clean, and modern energy

technologies

Household’s Wish/Desire Number of Households Percentage (%)

Yes 106 90.91%

No 16 6.8%
I don’t know 2 1.6
Total 124 100%
Source: own work (2018).

Figure 10: Willingness to switch to affordable, clean, and modern energy

technologies: own work (2018).

The above table and figure shows peoples willingness to switch to affordable,
modern, and clean cooking and lighting technologies. (90.91%) households said

71
“Yes”, thus willing to change to a modern and clean technology. (6.9%)
households said “No”, implying they are not willing to switch to the modern and
clean technology. Whereas, (2.6%) did not know. This signifies that the
respondents are quite aware of the need to use modern energy technologies and
they are willing to use them should they be introduced.

6.1.6 Level of awareness

Table 20: Level of awareness of the population

Modern bio-energy and small scale Number of Percentage (%)

renewable energy for households in households
Northern Uganda

Bio-pellets 7 5.6%

Bio-briquettes 14 11.3%

Liquid bio-fuel/bio-oil 24 19.4%

Biogas 17 13.7%

Solar Cooker 15 12.1%

Small scale PV Solar 101 81.5%

Others/ none of the above 9 7.3%

Source: own field finding (2018).

From the above table, the researcher did not present the total number of
households and the total percentage because they are overlapping, because some
households identified more than one source of modern bio-energy and small scale
renewable energy technologies. The result shows (5.6%) households identified
bio-pellets as the most sustainable (11.3%), households identified bio-briquettes,
(19.4%) households identified liquid bio-fuel, (13.7%) households identified
biogas energy, (12.1%) identified solar cookers, (81.5%) identified small scale PV
solar, and (7.3%) said none.

Other sources of modern energies like bio-pellets, bio-briquettes, and biogas are
not highly used and the population do not have knowledge of their existence.

72
These technologies might seem as less advanced and easily affordable and there
is need for information and awareness about the benefit of those clean and
sustainable energy technologies.

However, bio-oil would be easily adopted due to the availability of land and
people are already growing jatropha in small scale in marginal lands.

6.1.7 Household opinions on production of modern energy technologies

people response on who should take the first step towards the development of
modern energy technologies

Figure 11: Households’ opinion on production of modern energy technologies,

Source: own work, (2018)

Table 21: Households’ opinion on production of modern energy technologies

Options for energy Number of households Percentage (%)

producer
Energy Distributor 11 8.9%
Public Sector 46 37.1%
NGOs 55 44.3%
Energy producer 8 6.5%
Others (no specification) 4 3.2

73
 Total 124 100%
Source: field work finding (Interview).

The table above shows that (8.9%) households preferred energy distributor to take
up the first step towards the production of modern energy technologies, (37.1%)
households preferred public sector to take up the lead in production of modern
energy technologies, (44.3%) households preferred NGOs to produce the modern
energy technologies, (6.5%) households preferred the ongoing energy producer,
and finally, (3.2%) households made no specification.

The researcher discovered that households in Northern Uganda strongly prefer

the services delivered by the Non-Governmental Institutions/Organization, and it
is follows by the public sector’s services. Meanwhile, energy distributors and
energy producers are less preferred by the households.

In a subsequent manner, Non-Governmental Organizations have minimal level of

bureaucracy unlike the governmental organs. Furthermore, there is high level of
transparency in the NGOs implemented activities. Therefore, this is a prompting
perspective for the households to prefer NGOs. And from experience in the past
with NGOs distributing things for free so they believe if they take the first lead
then they will end up getting cheap or be donated those technologies

Whereas, the current energy producers and distribution have portrait a high-level
unreliability which has discourage the households in Northern Uganda.

6.1.8 Medium of information

This shows the media/medium through which households receive information
about modern renewable energy technologies

74
Figure 12: Medium of information: own survey, (2018)
From the above figure, (31.8%) households identified door to door sales person,
(54.55%) advertisement on television or radio, (4.5%) households identified
telephone (9.09%) friends’ referral and finally (4.5%) households did not specify.

From the above results, it is manifested that most households in Northern Uganda
receive vital information through television and radio. Nonetheless, other
households about 33% receive information through door to door sales agents, and
the least households receive information through the telephones and friends’
referral, and 3.2% households did not specify their source of information. it is
highly recommended that further information and awareness be disseminated to
households through workshops and seminars at the village/local arrangement.

75
6.1.9 Promotion that can enable people to the purchase of modern source of
energy

Promotions that WIll encourage respondents to purchase

mordern energy technologies
Others specify
Overtime payment
Free maintenance
Free installation
Donations
Discount

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00%

Figure 13: Types of promotions that can enable people to purchase modern own
work(2018)

From the above figure most of the respondent chose donation as the main option
that can draw them to using modern and clean technologies, followed by
discounts, free maintenance, over time payment, free installation, and other forms
of promotion. Based on the response above, its signifies that people favoured
donation since they would not pay any money, and this is so because majority of
the people could not afford to buy even the cheapest technology in the market, so
it should be put into consideration when introducing any technology, the price
should be relatively low and affordable by the target group (households)

6.1.10 Sources of fund for investment towards modern renewable energy by

households in Northern Uganda
Table 22: Sources of fund for investment towards modern renewable energy by
households in Northern Uganda

Majority get finances from their own savings

Responses Percent of Cases
Percent
finance Donation 21.1% 44.2%
Own saving 34.4% 72.1%
Cost sharing 16.7% 34.9%

76
 Donor funded 16.7% 34.9%
Other specify 1.1% 2.3%
Credit from microfinance 10.0% 20.9%
Total 100.0% 209.3%
Source: own survey, (2018)
6.1.11 Benefits of modern energy technologies to households
Table 23: Benefits of modern energy technologies to households

Reasons Most Important Most Least Not Missing

important likely important important
important
Energy security 8.9% 11.3% 21.0% 0.8% 0.8% 57.3%
Environmental 20.2% 15.3% 17.7% 0% 0% 46.8%
responsibility
Time saving 12.1% 22.6% 28.2% 0% 0% 37.1%
Money saving 14.5% 17.7% 10.5% 1.6% 0% 55.6%
Health benefit 38.7% 26.6% 15.3% 0% 0% 19.4%
Source: own survey, (2018)

Ranks in terms of importance

70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Most Important Most likely Least Not important Missing
important important important

Energy security Environmental responsibility Time saving

Money saving Health benefit

Figure 14: Benefits due to adoption of modern energy technologies, own work,
(2018)

77
In the above figure the respondents gave different ranks to different options and
the answers are overlapping but it shows clearly what the respondents think they
will gain a range of benefits from leaving the use of solid fuel to clean, sustainable,
and affordable sources of energy.

6.1.12 Conclusions from field findings

From the field findings above, the result show responses that were given by the
surveyed households and among the things considered were the demographic
characteristics of the head of the households, households sizes, main sources of
energy for cooking and light, monthly income, challenges faced due to using solid
biofuel, their willingness to switch to cleaner, sustainable and affordable energy
technologies, their level of awareness of other alternative energy technologies
apart from solid biomass, the benefits they think they would get from switching
to clean energy technologies among other questions. Detailed of these questions
are in the questionnaire in the appendix. (L)

The main source of energy for cooking were charcoal, fuelwood and plant oil and
energy for lighting were paraffin, Pico/mini solar and electricity. There was an
overwhelming response to willingness of about 90.91% to switch to clean
technologies due to the problems associated with using solid biomass for example
indoor pollution, deforestation among others. The level of awareness of other
alternative energy sources was limited because majority don’t know they exist and
majority of the population prefer alternative clean energy technologies to be
donated to them, others prefer government lead investment, loans, and cost
sharing because they don’t have enough money to invest.

From above responses, it is very clear that the people of northern Uganda are
willing to adopt to these alternative clean and sustainable energy technologies but
due to high cost and their low level of income, they may not be able to afford and
therefore, I recommend loan with low interest rate, donor funded projects towards
clean energy, government funded projects /interventions, subsidy led programs
among others.

78
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Summary of the main findings and conclusions
The purpose of the study is to create awareness and introduce small scale modern
biomass technologies, solar cookers, and mini PV Solar system to households in
Northern Uganda. These technologies can be used to provide energy for cooking
and light since majority of the population of Northern Uganda heavily rely on the
use of solid biomass for cooking and kerosene(paraffin) for light with poor
technologies for example three stones open fire and kerosene lamps which has
adverse social, health, economic, and environmental impacts.

Based on the information that I have gathered and analyzed the following major
points could be generalized on household’s energy use in the study area.
The result shows that the main source of household’s energy is firewood 83.1%
(103) and charcoal 56.5% (70) and 15%(19) uses plant oil. Charcoal is mainly used
by households in the urban areas because of the ease of storage and transportation,
whereas firewood is used by rural households because of availability and
affordability. This implies the consequences of over dependence on biomass which
leads to high level of deforestation, land degradation, indoor air pollution and
severe environmental problems.

Moreover, currently Northern Uganda is experiencing acute solid biofuel

shortages and if the trend continues then there will be no forest resources left to
supply the energy needs of the people of Northern Uganda. (Okello, Pindozzi,
Faugno, & Boccia, 2014)

From the result the main source of energy for light is kerosene (paraffin) whereby
out of the 124 households interviewed,76(63%) uses paraffin, electricity 4(3.2%)
and micro-solar 81(65.3%). Kerosene and micro solar systems are mainly used in
the rural area where there is limited access to electricity. Electricity is mainly used
in urban areas where there is grid connection. However, the level of adoption is
also very low in the urban area and the population prefer to use solar because of
reliable energy supply. Since majority of households in the study area use
kerosene for lighting which implies the consequences of over dependence on

79
petroleum products and often using poor technology which emits high smoke
hence causing high indoor air pollution with severe adverse health impacts.

The result also shows the level of income of the target group where majority are
low income earners, and this is significant in the rural area where majority live
below the international poverty line. From the study,58(46.8%) earn between 10-
50$ a month,28(22.6%) earn between 51-120$, 23(18.5%) earn between 121-
160,11(8.9%) earn between 200-500$ and 4(3.2%) are below 10$ per month and this
means that for any intervention towards the provision of clean modern energy to
households in Northern Uganda, financial aspects should put into consideration.
In my own view subsidy led program, donation, and access to low interest loan
will work well.

From the cost benefit analysis carried out, it can be concluded that benefits that
will accrue due to the introduction of modern and clean energy technology is high
ranging from health benefit, fuel saving, and time saved by women that can be
used to engage in other activities to help improve household’s standards of living.
Environmentally carbon and methane emission will be reduced, and forest
resources are preserved. The project will be beneficial to the society and the
country at large

7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The heavy reliance on solid biomass and use of inefficient technologies have
resulted into high depletion of the forest resources in Northern Uganda. To
overcome this, the rural population should be encouraged to adopt agro-forestry
on their own farmland for fuel wood purposes and adopt the use of improved and
fuel-efficient technologies (improved stoves) to contribute towards reducing the
burden on biomass resources. (WWF Report Uganda 2015)

In addition the result showed that households do not have access to information
on alternative technologies like biogas,bio-pellets,bio-oil,bio-briquettes,solar
cookers and small scale PV Solar systems, to fill this knowledge gap different
strategies should be implemented to introduce and disseminate these alternative
technologies or at least create awareness to the population about the socio-

80
economic, health and environmental benefits of these technologies via
demonstrations, pilot schemes ,posters, radio and tv advertisements.

However, there is need for an integrated approach to Rural Electrification

Program covering the whole spectrum of the energy sector (Robert Tumwesigye,
2011), since most of the rural households are not connected to electricity and if
connected, they cannot afford to use them for cooking and lighting, the
government should subsidize the use of electricity towards the poor. There should
be grant and revolving funds provided to the beneficiaries. The micro-finance
should provide loans to households who would like to purchase PV solar systems
and bio-digesters.

Furthermore, the government and donor’s organizations should partner with

saving co-operatives at the village level. The village saving co-operatives shall
provide an avenue for credit facilities especially low-income earners. (The-
Renewable-Energy-Policy-for-Uganda-2007-2017, 2007)

There is need to develop favorable government policies and incentives, research,

and development. The government should use the experience gained in
implementing reforms in the energy policy to institute appropriate strategies and
mechanisms to scale up rural access to energy services. (Okello, Pindozzi, Faugno,
& Boccia, 2013) skills and training or livelihood training in the rural areas such as
in modern biomass production and solar technical skills, simple courses on how
to install and operate those technologies to reduce problems that may arise from
poor usage.

Integrating renewable energy policy to improve household energy efficiency, such

as promoting fuel efficient cookstoves, is a viable interim solution while
improving accessibility to alternative fuels. (Lee, 2013)

The guidelines on governance of charcoal sector with the aim to regulate charcoal
production, creating standards to improve technologies employed in the
production and increased efficiency should be set in place. Since the technology
employed are rudimentary, investment to introduce modern new kilns which are

81
more energy efficient are wanting. (David Kureeba). And involving the local
people since they are ones who are most involve in the charcoal production
business (small scale producers)

3.3 Future Research

The following research need to be addressed for future work in the study area of
Northern Uganda.
• Challenges and opportunities of renewable sources of energy (biogas, bio-
pellets, bio-oil, bio-briquettes, solar cookers Solar and others).
• There should be increase rate of fuel saving stove penetration in Northern
Uganda.
• Obstacle to the use of electricity in rural households of Northern Uganda.
• Further studies could analyze the impact of these technologies use in
agricultural sectors since the agricultural sector is the main source of
livelihood for majority of Ugandans.

82
CHAPTER 8: BIBLIOGRAPHY
Uganda_Energy_Situation. (March,17 2017). Uganda Energy Situation. Retrieved
from https://energypedia.info/wiki/Uganda_Energy_Situation#toc
Biomass Energy Strategy (BEST) 2014. (2014).
Bisu, D. Y., Kuhe, A., & Iortyer, H. A. (2016). Urban household cooking energy
choice: an example of Bauchi metropolis, Nigeria. Energy, Sustainability and Society,
6(1). doi:10.1186/s13705-016-0080-1
David Kureeba, N., Uganda. Wood-Based Bioenergy in Uganda: The Bukaleba
Forest Reserve.
Kandel, P., Chapagain, P. S., Sharma, L. N., & Vetaas, O. R. (2016). Consumption
Patterns of Fuelwood in Rural Households of Dolakha District, Nepal: Reflections
from Community Forest User Groups. Small-scale Forestry, 15(4), 481-495.
doi:10.1007/s11842-016-9335-0
Lee, L. Y.-T. (2013). Household energy mix in Uganda. Energy Economics, 39, 252-
261. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2013.05.010
Okello, C., Pindozzi, S., Faugno, S., & Boccia, L. (2013). Development of bioenergy
technologies in Uganda: A review of progress. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 18, 55-63. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.004
SREP Investment Plan for Uganda. (2015).
Uganda_Energy Profile.
world Bank Report. (2017). Retrieved from
http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/uganda

Byarugaba, F. I. B. K. a. D. (2001). Disappearing forests of Uganda: The way

forward. CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 81(NO. 8), 936-947.
Energy for All. (2011). Financing Access for the Poor.
export.gov. (2017). Uganda - Energy. Retrieved from
https://www.export.gov/article?id=Uganda-Energy

83
Ministry of Works and Transport (2017). www.gou.go.ug/topics/transport-
telecomunication. Retrieved from http://www.gou.go.ug/topics/transport-
telecomunication
Uganda Bureau of Statistics. (2017, Updated on November 20th, 2017).
StatisticalAbstract.Retrievedfromhttp://www.ubos.org/onlinefiles/uploads/ubos/
statistical_abstracts/2017_Statistical_Abstract.pdf Uganda Revenue Authority.
(2017, 18/01/2018). Retrieved from https://www.ura.go.ug/search.do
Vaccari, M., Vitali, F., & Tudor, T. (2017). Multi-criteria assessment of the
appropriateness of a cooking technology: A case study of the Logone Valley.
Energy Policy, 109, 66-75. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.052
world Bank Report. (2017). Retrieved from
http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/uganda
WWF Report Uganda 2015. Energy report for Uganda, A 100% renewable energy
future by 2050.
www.ug.undp.org. (2017). Uganda’s Solidarity Summit for Refugees raises over
USD350m. Retrieved from
http://www.ug.undp.org/content/uganda/en/home/presscenter/articles/2017/06/2
6/uganda-s-solidarity-summit-for-refugees-raises-over-usd300m.html
www.worldbank.org. (2016). Uganda`s Progressive Approach to Refugee
Management. Retrieved from
http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/fragilityconflictviolence/brief/ugandas-
progressive-approach-refugee-management

SE4ALL. (2015, June). SE4ALL Action Agenda.

Energy for All. (2011). Financing Access for the Poor.
powerforall. (2017). POWER FOR ALL PERSPECTIVE: Status of Universal
Electricity Access. Retrieved from http://www.powerforall.org/fact-sheets

SE4ALL-Vision. (2011). A Vision Statement by Ban Ki-moon Secretary-General of

the United Nations.

WHO. (2018). HOUSEHOLD (INDOOR) AIR POLLUTION. Retrieved from

http://www.who.int/indoorair/en/

84
Ali, H. S., Law, S. H., Yusop, Z., & Chin, L. (2017). Dynamic implication of biomass
energy consumption on economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa: evidence from
panel data analysis. GeoJournal, 82(3), 493-502. doi:10.1007/s10708-016-9698-y

Bildirici, M., & Özaksoy, F. (2016). Woody Biomass Energy Consumption and
Economic Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa. Procedia Economics and Finance, 38, 287-
293. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30202-7

Harris, T., Collinson, M., & Wittenberg, M. (2017). Aiming for a Moving Target:
The Dynamics of Household Electricity Connections in a Developing Context.
World Development, 97, 14-26. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.03.016

Kofi-Opata, E. (2016). Spatial Patterns and Trends in Energy Use and

Consumption in Africa. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 15(4),
406-418. doi:doi:https://doi.org/10.1163/15691497-12341398

Singh, R., Wang, X., Mendoza, J. C., & Ackom, E. K. (2015). Electricity
(in)accessibility to the urban poor in developing countries. Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews: Energy and Environment, 4(4), 339-353. doi:10.1002/wene.148

UN. (2018). Sustainable Development Goals:17 Goals to Transform our World.

Retrieved from http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/energy/

Robert Tumwesigye, P. T., Nathan Makuregye,Ellady Muyambi. (2011). Key

issues in Uganda´s energy sector:Pro-Biodiversity Conservationists in Uganda
(PROBICOU)
Lauri, P., Havlík, P., Kindermann, G., Forsell, N., Böttcher, H., & Obersteiner, M.
(2014). Woody biomass energy potential in 2050. Energy Policy, 66, 19-31.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.033
The Renewable Energy Policy for Uganda 2007-2017. (2007). The-Renewable-
Energy-Policy-for-Uganda-2007-2017.

(NPA), U. V. (2007). Uganda Vision 2040 (NPA 2007).

Development, M. o. E. a. M. (National Biomass Energy Demand Strategy 2001-
2010). National Biomass Energy Demand Strategy.

85
Uganda Energy Situation. (March,17 2017). uganda Energy Situation. Retrieved
from https://energypedia.info/wiki/Uganda_Energy_Situation#toc
World Bank Group. (2016). The Uganda Poverty Assesement Report 2016.
Bridgwater, A. V. (2011). Review of fast pyrolysis of biomass and product
upgrading.

Halder, P. K., Paul, N., & Beg, M. R. A. (2014). Assessment of biomass energy
resources and related technologies practice in Bangladesh. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 39, 444-460. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.071
Heracleous, E., Lappas, A., & Serrano, D. (2017). Special thematic issue in
“Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery” “Advances in catalytic biomass fast
pyrolysis and bio-oil upgrading”. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, 7(3), 275-276.
doi:10.1007/s13399-017-0284-4
Liu, C. W. S. U., The Gene & Linda Voiland School of Chemical Engineering and
Bioengineering Wang, Huamin; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Karim,
Ayman; PNNL, Sun, Junming; Washington State University, The Gene & Linda
Voiland School of Chemical Engineering and Bioengineering Wang, Yong; Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, Institute for Integrated Catalysis. (2014).
Catalytic Fast Pyrolysis of Lignocellulosic Biomass. Chemical Society Review.
McKendry, P. (2002). Energy Production from Biomass. Bioresource Technology, 83,
37-46.
Wang, J., Zhong, Z., Zhang, B., Ding, K., Xue, Z., Deng, A., & Ruan, R. (2017).
Upgraded bio-oil production via catalytic fast co-pyrolysis of waste cooking oil
and tea residual. Waste Manag, 60, 357-362. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.008

Bridgwater, A. V. (2012). Review of fast pyrolysis of biomass and product

upgrading. Biomass and Bioenergy, 38, 68-94. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.01.048
Chen, Y., Wu, Y., Hua, D., Li, C., Harold, M. P., Wang, J., & Yang, M. (2015).
Thermochemical conversion of low-lipid microalgae to produce liquid fuels:
challenges and opportunities. RSC Advances, 5(24), 18673-18701.
doi:10.1039/c4ra13359e

Halder, P. K., Joardder, M. U. H., Beg, M. R. A., Paul, N., & Ullah, I. (2015).
Utilization of Bio-Oil for Cooking and Lighting. Advances in Mechanical
Engineering, 4. doi:10.1155/2012/190518

86
Yaakob, Z., Mohammad, M., Alherbawi, M., Alam, Z., & Sopian, K. (2013).
Overview of the production of biodiesel from Waste cooking oil. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 18, 184-193. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.016

africareportingproject.org. (2010). Biofuels take root in Uganda as experts warn of

severe hunger Retrieved from
http://africareportingproject.org/2010/03/08/biofuels-take-root-in-uganda-as-
experts-warn-of-severe-hunger/
Bildirici, M., & Özaksoy, F. (2016). Woody Biomass Energy Consumption and
Economic Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa. Procedia Economics and Finance, 38, 287-
293. doi:10.1016/s2212-5671(16)30202-7
Collins Okello 1, Stefania Pindozzi 2, Salvatore Faugno 2 and Lorenzo Boccia 2,*.
(2014). Appraising Bioenergy Alternatives in Uganda Using
Strengths,Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)-Analytical Hierarchy
Process (AHP) and a Desirability Functions Approach.

Cutz, L., Haro, P., Santana, D., & Johnsson, F. (2016). Assessment of biomass
energy sources and technologies: The case of Central America. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58, 1411-1431. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.322

Deenanath, E. D., Iyuke, S., & Rumbold, K. (2012). The bioethanol industry in sub-
Saharan Africa: history, challenges, and prospects. J Biomed Biotechnol, 2012,
416491. doi:10.1155/2012/416491
Duku, M. H., Gu, S., & Hagan, E. B. (2011). A comprehensive review of biomass
resources and biofuels potential in Ghana. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 15(1), 404-415. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.09.033
gebe.foei.org. (2014). Biofuel production threatens food security in rural Uganda.
Retrieved from http://gebe.foei.org/good-energy-bad-energy/who-
benefits/biofuel-production-threatens-food-security-in-rural-uganda/
Harrison, J. A. (2011). Sustainable bioenergy feedstock production in rural areas of
developing countries. (A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
(Ph.D.) at Newcastle University), Newcastle University,
McKendry, P. (2002). Energy Production from Biomass. Bioresource Technology, 83,
37-46.
Mohanty,K.K.P.a.P.(2012).Transformation_of_Biomass_Theory_to_Practice_(1_Bi
omass,_Conversion_Routes_and_Products___An_Overview).

87
Windt,D.M.a.M.,&Th¨unen-Institutf¨urHolzforschung,G.(2012).
Transformation_of_Biomass_Theory_to_Practice_(13_Analysis_of_BioOils).
Wikipedia. (2018). Pellet fuel. In Wikipedia.
Price, R. (2017). Clean” Cooking Energy in Uganda – technologies, impacts, and
key barriers and enablers to market acceleration.

UNDESA. (2007). Small-Scale Production and Use of Liquid Biofuels in Sub-

Saharan Africa:Perspectives for Sustainable Development.

Ståhl, M. (2008). Improving Wood Fuel Pellets for Household Use. (PhD), Karlstad
University Studies, (49)
UNEP. (2018). UN-Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

World Bank (2018). Uganda country profile. Retrieved from

http://databank.worldbank.org/data/Views/Reports/ReportWidgetCustom.aspx?
Report_Name=CountryProfile&Id=b450fd57&tbar=y&dd=y&inf=n&zm=n&count
ry=UGA

africanbiogas. (2018). Africa Biogas Partnership Programme Retrieved from

http://www.africabiogas.org/
B. Amigun1, W. Parawira2, J. K. Musango3, A. O. Aboyade4 and A. S. Badmos1.
(2012). Anaerobic Biogas Generation for Rural Area Energy Provision in Africa
Edwards, B. (2016). Biogas in Uganda-Any question. Retrieved from
https://www.heifer.org/join-the-conversation/blog/2010/December/biogas-in-
uganda-any-questions.html
Felix ter Heegde. (2007). Institutional arrangments for the Uganda Domestic
Biogas Program.

Rupf, G. V., Bahri, P. A., de Boer, K., & McHenry, M. P. (2017). Development of an
optimal biogas system design model for Sub-Saharan Africa with case studies
from Kenya and Cameroon. Renewable Energy, 109, 586-601.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2017.03.048

Tewelde Gebre Berhe, R. G. T., Grmanesh Abreha Desta & Lemlem Semungus
Mekonnen. (2017). Biogas Plant Distribution for Rural Household Sustainable
Energy Supply in Africa. Energy and Policy Research, 4(1), 10-20.

88
Tucho, G., Moll, H., Schoot Uiterkamp, A., & Nonhebel, S. (2016). Problems with
Biogas Implementation in Developing Countries from the Perspective of Labor
Requirements. Energies, 9(9). doi:10.3390/en9090750
Tumutegyereize, P., Ketlogetswe, C., Gandure, J., & Banadda, N. (2017). Technical
Evaluation of Uptake, Use, Management and Future Implications of Household
Biogas Digesters—A Case of Kampala City Peri-Urban Areas. Computational
Water, Energy, and Environmental Engineering, 06(02), 180-191.
doi:10.4236/cweee.2017.62013
Tumwesige, V. (2013). The potential of flexible balloon digesters to improve livelihoods
in Uganda. A case study of Tiribogo. (Master of Science in Environmental Science),
University of Aberdeen., (51226952)

yimana Mulinda, Q. H., Ke Pan. (2013). Dissemination and Problems of African

Biogas Technology Energy and Power Engineering, 5, 506-51

Anbu Elango R, M. P. (2003). Bio-Gas Power Plants –Green Energy options for
Indian villages.

B. Amigun1, W. Parawira2, J. K. Musango3, A. O. Aboyade4 and A. S. Badmos.

(2012). Anaerobic Biogas Generation for Rural Area Energy Provision in Africa.

Esposito, G., Frunzo, L., Giordano, A., Liotta, F., Panico, A., & Pirozzi, F. (2012).
Anaerobic co-digestion of organic wastes. Reviews in Environmental Science and
Bio/Technology, 11(4), 325-341. doi:10.1007/s11157-012-9277-8

Mudhoo, A., & Kumar, S. (2013). Effects of heavy metals as stress factors on
anaerobic digestion processes and biogas production from biomass. International
Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 10(6), 1383-1398.
doi:10.1007/s13762-012-0167-y

Na, W. (2017). Effects of Combined Pretreatment of Sewage Sludge on Biogas

Production in Anaerobic Digestion Process. Nature Environment and Pollution
Technology An International Quarterly Scientific Journal, 16(4), 1267-1270.
Nzila, A. (2017). Mini review: Update on bioaugmentation in anaerobic processes
for biogas production. Anaerobe, 46, 3-12. doi:10.1016/j.anaerobe.2016.11.007

89
Walekhwa, P. N., Lars, D., & Mugisha, J. (2014). Economic viability of biogas
energy production from family-sized digesters in Uganda. Biomass and Bioenergy,
70, 26-39. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.03.008
Walekhwa, P. N., Mugisha, J., & Drake, L. (2009). Biogas energy from family-sized
digesters in Uganda: Critical factors and policy implications. Energy Policy, 37(7),
2754-2762. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.03.018

Zaccai, S. L. E. (2017). Making clean cooking champions: perceptions on

development of private actors in Uganda.

Cutz, L., Haro, P., Santana, D., & Johnsson, F. (2016). Assessment of biomass
energy sources and technologies: The case of Central America. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58, 1411-1431. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.322

Kelebe, H. E., Ayimut, K. M., Berhe, G. H., & Hintsa, K. (2017). Determinants for
adoption decision of small scale biogas technology by rural households in Tigray,
Ethiopia. Energy Economics, 66, 272-278. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2017.06.022
Lwiza, F., Mugisha, J., Walekhwa, P. N., Smith, J., & Balana, B. (2017). Dis-adoption
of Household Biogas technologies in Central Uganda. Energy for Sustainable
Development, 37, 124-132. doi:10.1016/j.esd.2017.01.006
Mulinda, C., Hu, Q., & Pan, K. (2013). Dissemination and Problems of African
Biogas Technology. Energy and Power Engineering, 05(08), 506-512.
doi:10.4236/epe.2013.58055
Owusu, P. A., & Banadda, N. (2017). Livestock waste-to-bioenergy generation
potential in Uganda. Environmental Research, Engineering and Management, 73(3).
doi:10.5755/j01.erem.73.3.14806
Skovsgaard, L., & Jacobsen, H. K. (2017). Economies of scale in biogas production
and the significance of flexible regulation. Energy Policy, 101, 77-89.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.11.021
Tucho, G., Moll, H., Schoot Uiterkamp, A., & Nonhebel, S. (2016). Problems with
Biogas Implementation in Developing Countries from the Perspective of Labor
Requirements. Energies, 9(9). doi:10.3390/en9090750

Cutz, L., Haro, P., Santana, D., & Johnsson, F. (2016). Assessment of biomass
energy sources and technologies: The case of Central America. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58, 1411-1431. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.322

90
Duku, M. H., Gu, S., & Hagan, E. B. (2011). A comprehensive review of biomass
resources and biofuels potential in Ghana. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 15(1), 404-415. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.09.033
MEMD-SEALL. (2015). SE4ALL Action Agenda.
Rupf, G. V., Bahri, P. A., de Boer, K., & McHenry, M. P. (2017). Development of an
optimal biogas system design model for Sub-Saharan Africa with case studies
from Kenya and Cameroon. Renewable Energy, 109, 586-601.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2017.03.048
Skovsgaard, L., & Jacobsen, H. K. (2017). Economies of scale in biogas production
and the significance of flexible regulation. Energy Policy, 101, 77-89.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.11.021

Chen, Y., Wu, Y., Hua, D., Li, C., Harold, M. P., Wang, J., & Yang, M. (2015).
Thermochemical conversion of low-lipid microalgae for the production of liquid
fuels: challenges and opportunities. RSC Advances, 5(24), 18673-18701.
doi:10.1039/c4ra13359e
Lee, H., Kim, Y.-M., Lee, I.-G., Jeon, J.-K., Jung, S.-C., Chung, J. D., . . . Park, Y.-K.
(2016). Recent advances in the catalytic hydrodeoxygenation of bio-oil. Korean
Journal of Chemical Engineering, 33(12), 3299-3315. doi:10.1007/s11814-016-0214-3

Kusumaningrum, W. B., & Munawar, S. S. (2014). Prospect of Bio-pellet as an

Alternative Energy to Substitute Solid Fuel Based. Energy Procedia, 47, 303-309.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.01.229

Méndez-Vázquez, M. A., Gómez-Castro, F. I., Ponce-Ortega, J. M., Serafín-Muñoz,

A. H., Santibañez-Aguilar, J. E., & El-Halwagi, M. M. (2016). Mathematical
optimization of a supply chain for the production of fuel pellets from residual
biomass. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 19(3), 721-734.
doi:10.1007/s10098-016-1257-1
Rusdianto, A. S., & Choiron, M. (2015). Analysis of Bio Pellet Process Based on
Mass Balance. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 3, 262-265.
doi:10.1016/j.aaspro.2015.01.050
Unpinit, T., Poblarp, T., Sailoon, N., Wongwicha, P., & Thabuot, M. (2015). Fuel
Properties of Bio-Pellets Produced from Selected Materials under Various
Compacting Pressure. Energy Procedia, 79, 657-662.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.551

91
Dobson, S., Nyamweru, H., & Dodman, D. (2015). Local and participatory
approaches to building resilience in informal settlements in Uganda. Environment
and Urbanization, 27(2), 605-620. doi:10.1177/0956247815598520

Ferguson, H. (2012). Briquette Businesses in Uganda.

Shuma, R., & Madyira, D. M. (2017). Production of Loose Biomass Briquettes from
Agricultural and Forestry Residues. Procedia Manufacturing, 7, 98-105.
doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2016.12.026
Tumutegyereize, P., Mugenyi, R., Ketlogetswe, C., & Gandure, J. (2016). A
comparative performance analysis of carbonized briquettes and charcoal fuels in
Kampala-urban, Uganda. Energy for Sustainable Development, 31, 91-96.
doi:10.1016/j.esd.2016.01.001

Deac, T., Fechete-Tutunaru, L., & Gaspar, F. (2016). Environmental Impact of

Sawdust Briquettes Use – Experimental Approach. Energy Procedia, 85, 178-183.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2015.12.324

G. Sireesh Kumar, D. C. J. R., Dr.D.Sreeramulu and S.K. Madhavi. (2017).

EVALUATION OF BOILER EFFICIENCY OF BIO BRIQUETTES BY INDIRECT
METHOD. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET),
7(6), 624-633.
G.DANON, T. S. J., B. BUJANOVIC AND G.STANOJEVIC. (1997). FUEL
CHARACTERISTICS OF BRIQUETTES FROM WOOD WASTE AND RECYCLED
PAPER In Biomass and alternate fuel systems:an engineering and economic guide (pp.
731-740).
H.Haykiri-Acma, a. S. Y. (2010). Production of Smokeless Bio-briquettes from
Hazelnut Shell. Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer
Science 2010 Vol II, II.
Halder, P. K., Joardder, M. U. H., Beg, M. R. A., Paul, N., & Ullah, I. (2015).
Utilization of Bio-Oil for Cooking and Lighting. Advances in Mechanical
Engineering, 4. doi:10.1155/2012/190518
Liu, R. C., Huang, B., Lv, W., Gao, Q., & Wang, X. Y. (2014). Biomass Molding
Technology and the Research State of Biomass Binder. Applied Mechanics and
Materials, 700, 3-6. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.700.3

92
Suryaningsih, S., Nurhilal, O., Yuliah, Y., & Salsabila, E. (2018). Fabrication and
characterization of rice husk charcoal bio briquettes.
Thabuot, M., Pagketanang, T., Panyacharoen, K., Mongkut, P., & Wongwicha, P.
(2015). Effect of Applied Pressure and Binder Proportion on the Fuel Properties of
Holey Bio-Briquettes. Energy Procedia, 79, 890-895.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.583
Tumutegyereize, P., Mugenyi, R., Ketlogetswe, C., & Gandure, J. (2016). A
comparative performance analysis of carbonized briquettes and charcoal fuels in
Kampala-urban, Uganda. Energy for Sustainable Development, 31, 91-96.
doi:10.1016/j.esd.2016.01.001

Cuce, E., & Cuce, P. M. (2013). A comprehensive review on solar cookers. Applied
Energy, 102, 1399-1421. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.09.002
FAO. (2018). World deforestation slows down as more forests are better managed.
Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/326911/icode/
Geddam, S., Dinesh, G. K., & Sivasankar, T. (2015). Determination of thermal
performance of a box type solar cooker. Solar Energy, 113, 324-331.
doi:10.1016/j.solener.2015.01.014
Guidara, Z., Souissi, M., Morgenstern, A., & Maalej, A. (2017). Thermal
performance of a solar box cooker with outer reflectors: Numerical study
and experimental investigation. Solar Energy, 158, 347-359.
doi:10.1016/j.solener.2017.09.054
Harmim, A., Merzouk, M., Boukar, M., & Amar, M. (2013). Design and
experimental testing of an innovative building-integrated box type solar
cooker. Solar Energy, 98, 422-433. doi:10.1016/j.solener.2013.09.019
Joshi, S. B., & Jani, A. R. (2015). Design, development and testing of a small scale
hybrid solar cooker. Solar Energy, 122, 148-155.
doi:10.1016/j.solener.2015.08.025
MacClancy, J. (2015a). Solar Cookers. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Food Issues.
MacClancy, J. (2015b). Solar Cooking. Food, Culture & Society, 17(2), 301-318.
doi:10.2752/175174414x13871910532060
Mbodji, N., & Hajji, A. (2017). Modeling, testing, and parametric analysis of a
parabolic solar cooking system with heat storage for indoor cooking.
Energy, Sustainability and Society, 7(1). doi:10.1186/s13705-017-0134-z

93
Muthusivagami, R. M., Velraj, R., & Sethumadhavan, R. (2010). Solar cookers with
and without thermal storage—A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 14(2), 691-701. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2008.08.018
Otte, P. P. (2014). A (new) cultural turn toward solar cooking—Evidence from six
case studies across India and Burkina Faso. Energy Research & Social Science,
2, 49-58. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2014.04.006
Panwar, N. L., Kaushik, S. C., & Kothari, S. (2012). State of the art of solar cooking:
An overview. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(6), 3776-3785.
doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.026
Regattieri, A., Piana, F., Bortolini, M., Gamberi, M., & Ferrari, E. (2016). Innovative
portable solar cooker using the packaging waste of humanitarian supplies.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 57, 319-326.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.199
Saxena, A., Varun, Pandey, S. P., & Srivastav, G. (2011). A thermodynamic review
on solar box type cookers. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(6),
3301-3318. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.04.017
UNDP. (2017). Uganda’s Solidarity Summit for Refugees raises over USD350m.
Retrieved from
http://www.ug.undp.org/content/uganda/en/home/presscenter/articles/20
17/06/26/uganda-s-solidarity-summit-for-refugees-raises-over-
usd300m.html
WHO. (2018, 03/2018). Drinking Water. Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs391/en/
Yettou, F., Azoui, B., Malek, A., Gama, A., & Panwar, N. L. (2014). Solar cooker
realizations in actual use: An overview. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 37, 288-306. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.018

Solar Household Energy. (2017). Solar Cooking for Human Development and
Environmental Relief.

Uganda Country Report. (2012). Uganda Country Report.

energypedia. (2018). Rural Solar Market Development - Lessons Learned from

Uganda In energypedia.

94
Sugathapala, A. G. T. (2013). Technologies for converting waste agricultural
biomass to energy

Enclude BV, T. N. L. H., Geert Eenhoorn, Bobby Namiti. (2014). MARKET

ASSESSMENT OF MODERN OFF GRID LIGHTING SYSTEMS IN
UGANDA.

Ulrich Elmer Hansen, M. B. P., Ivan Nygaard. (2014). Review of Solar PV market
development in East Africa.

Feron, S. (2016). Sustainability of Off-Grid Photovoltaic Systems for Rural

Electrification in Developing Countries: A Review. Sustainability, 8(12).
doi:10.3390/su8121326

BARMAN, J. (2011). Design and feasibility study of PV systems

in Kenya. (Master’s Thesis within the Sustainable Energy System programme),

CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, (Report no. T2011-347)
Boardley, A. (2013). Two Sides of the Same Coin?

A Preliminary Analysis of Sustainable Development Opportunities Identified in National

Communications of Non-Annex I Parties. (Master of Science in Environmental
Management and Policy), The International Institute for Industrial
Environmental Economics,
Domenech, B., Ferrer-Martí, L., Lillo, P., Pastor, R., & Chiroque, J. (2014). A
community electrification project: Combination of microgrids and
household systems fed by wind, PV or micro-hydro energies according to
micro-scale resource evaluation and social constraints. Energy for
Sustainable Development, 23, 275-285. doi:10.1016/j.esd.2014.09.007
Fransson, T. (2010). SOLAR PV BASED RURAL ELECTRIFICATION IN REMA
RURAL VILLAGE. (Master of Science Thesis EGI-2010-xx),
Matungwa, B. (2014). AN ANALYSIS OF PV SOLAR ELECTRIFICATION ON
RURAL LIVELIHOOD TRANSFORMATION

A case of Kisiju-Pwani in Mkuranga District, Tanzania. (Degree of Master of

Philosophy in Culture, Environment and Sustainability), Centre for
Development and the Environment University of Oslo,

95
NATIONS, U. (2010). Renewable Energy Technologies for Rural Development.
UNCTAD CURRENT STUDIES ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND
INNOVATION.
Sabine de Bruin , L. v. d. P., Nienke Dekens, Nienke Raap, Katja Joumanova and
Benjamin Lüber. Solar Energy in Sub-Saharan Africa A solar cost-benefit
analysis of Uganda. Retrieved from
Ulrich Elmer Hansen, M. B. P., Ivan Nygaard. (2014). Review of Solar PV market
development in East Africa

Acheampong, E., & Campion, B. (2014). The Effects of Biofuel Feedstock

Production on Farmers’ Livelihoods in Ghana: The Case of Jatropha curcas.
Sustainability, 6(12), 4587-4607. doi:10.3390/su6074587

Jewitt, G., & Kunz, R. (2011). The impact of biofuel feedstock production on water
resources: a developing country perspective. Biofuels, Bioproducts and
Biorefining, 5(4), 387-398. doi:10.1002/bbb.314
Reddy, B. V. S., Ramesh, S., Ashok Kumar, A., Wani, S. P., Ortiz, R., Ceballos, H.,
& Sreedevi, T. K. (2008). Bio-Fuel Crops Research for Energy Security and
Rural Development in Developing Countries. BioEnergy Research, 1(3-4),
248-258. doi:10.1007/s12155-008-9022-x

Méndez-Vázquez, M. A., Gómez-Castro, F. I., Ponce-Ortega, J. M., Serafín-Muñoz,

A. H., Santibañez-Aguilar, J. E., & El-Halwagi, M. M. (2016). Mathematical
optimization of a supply chain for the production of fuel pellets from residual
biomass. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 19(3), 721-734.
doi:10.1007/s10098-016-1257-1

Development, M. o. E. a. M. (National Biomass Energy Demand Strategy 2001-

2010). National Biomass Energy Demand Strategy.
Méndez-Vázquez, M. A., Gómez-Castro, F. I., Ponce-Ortega, J. M., Serafín-Muñoz,
A. H., Santibañez-Aguilar, J. E., & El-Halwagi, M. M. (2016). Mathematical
optimization of a supply chain for the production of fuel pellets from
residual biomass. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 19(3), 721-
734. doi:10.1007/s10098-016-1257-1
Uganda Bureau of Statistics. (2017, Updated on November 20th, 2017 ). Statistical
Abstract. Retrieved from

96
 http://www.ubos.org/onlinefiles/uploads/ubos/statistical_abstracts/2017_
Statistical_Abstract.pdf
Unpinit, T., Poblarp, T., Sailoon, N., Wongwicha, P., & Thabuot, M. (2015). Fuel
Properties of Bio-Pellets Produced from Selected Materials under Various
Compacting Pressure. Energy Procedia, 79, 657-662.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.551

Uganda Bureau of Statistics. (2017, Updated on November 20th, 2017 ). Statistical

Abstract. Retrieved from
http://www.ubos.org/onlinefiles/uploads/ubos/statistical_abstracts/2017_
Statistical_Abstract.pdf

Liu, Z., Mi, B., Jiang, Z., Fei, B., Cai, Z., & Liu, X. e. (2016). Improved bulk density
of bamboo pellets as biomass for energy production. Renewable Energy, 86,
1-7. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2015.08.011
Sanchez, T., Dennis, R., & Pullen, K. R. (2013). Cooking and lighting habits in rural
Nepal and Uganda. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Part A: Journal of Power and Energy, 227(7), 727-739.
doi:10.1177/0957650913498872
Shan, M., Li, D., Jiang, Y., & Yang, X. (2016). Re-thinking china's densified biomass
fuel policies: Large or small scale? Energy Policy, 93, 119-126.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.02.050
Stelte, W., Holm, J. K., Sanadi, A. R., Barsberg, S., Ahrenfeldt, J., & Henriksen, U.
B. (2011). Fuel pellets from biomass: The importance of the pelletizing
pressure and its dependency on the processing conditions. Fuel, 90(11),
3285-3290. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2011.05.011
Theerarattananoon, K., Xu, F., Wilson, J., Ballard, R., McKinney, L., Staggenborg,
S., . . . Wang, D. (2011). Physical properties of pellets made from sorghum
stalk, corn stover, wheat straw, and big bluestem. Industrial Crops and
Products, 33(2), 325-332. doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2010.11.014

Cochran, A. S. (2016). Alternative Bioenergy: Small Scale Pellet Production from Forest
Residues. ( Degree of Master of Science with a Major in Natural Resources),
College of Graduate Studies University of Idaho,

97
Ståhl, M. (2008). Improving Wood Fuel Pellets for Household Use. (PhD), Karlstad
University Studies, (49)
UNDESA. (2007). Small-Scale Production and Use of Liquid Biofuels in Sub-
Saharan Africa:Perspectives for Sustainable Development.

Achten, W. M. J., Verchot, L., Franken, Y. J., Mathijs, E., Singh, V. P., Aerts, R., &
Muys, B. (2008). Jatropha bio-diesel production and use. Biomass and
Bioenergy, 32(12), 1063-1084. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.03.003
Contran, N., Chessa, L., Lubino, M., Bellavite, D., Lobina, R., Sahanoon, O., . . .
Enne, G. (2016). Potentialities and limits of Jatropha curcas L. as alternative
energy source to traditional energy sources in Northern Ghana. Energy for
Sustainable Development, 31, 163-169. doi:10.1016/j.esd.2016.02.004
Contran, N., Chessa, L., Lubino, M., Bellavite, D., Roggero, P. P., & Enne, G. (2013).
State-of-the-art of the Jatropha curcas productive chain: From sowing to
biodiesel and by-products. Industrial Crops and Products, 42, 202-215.
doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2012.05.037
Edrisi, S. A., Dubey, R. K., Tripathi, V., Bakshi, M., Srivastava, P., Jamil, S., . . .
Abhilash, P. C. (2015). Jatropha curcas L.: A crucified plant waiting for
resurgence. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41, 855-862.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.082
Grimsby, L. K., Aune, J. B., & Johnsen, F. H. (2012). Human energy requirements
in Jatropha oil production for rural electrification in Tanzania. Energy for
Sustainable Development, 16(3), 297-302. doi:10.1016/j.esd.2012.04.002
Koh, M. Y., & Mohd. Ghazi, T. I. (2011). A review of biodiesel production from
Jatropha curcas L. oil. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(5), 2240-
2251. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.02.013
Kumar, P., Srivastava, V. C., & Jha, M. K. (2016). Jatropha curcas phytotomy and
applications: Development as a potential biofuel plant through
biotechnological advancements. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
59, 818-838. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.358
Mogaka, V., Ehrensperger, A., Iiyama, M., Birtel, M., Heim, E., & Gmuender, S.
(2014). Understanding the underlying mechanisms of recent Jatropha
curcas L. adoption by smallholders in Kenya: A rural livelihood
assessment in Bondo, Kibwezi, and Kwale districts. Energy for Sustainable
Development, 18, 9-15. doi:10.1016/j.esd.2013.11.010

98
Wendimu, M. A. (2016). Jatropha potential on marginal land in Ethiopia: Reality
or myth? Energy for Sustainable Development, 30, 14-20.
doi:10.1016/j.esd.2015.11.001

Bhattacharyya, S. (2016). Introduction. In Solar Photovoltaic System Applications (pp.

1-6).
Chaurey, A., & Kandpal, T. C. (2010). Assessment and evaluation of PV based
decentralized rural electrification: An overview. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 14(8), 2266-2278. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.04.005
Contran, N., Chessa, L., Lubino, M., Bellavite, D., Lobina, R., Sahanoon, O., . . .
Enne, G. (2016). Potentialities and limits of Jatropha curcas L. as alternative
energy source to traditional energy sources in Northern Ghana. Energy for
Sustainable Development, 31, 163-169. doi:10.1016/j.esd.2016.02.004
Muchunku, C., Ulsrud, K., Palit, D., & Jonker-Klunne, W. (2018). Diffusion of solar
PV in East Africa: What can be learned from private sector delivery
models? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, 7(3).
doi:10.1002/wene.282
Pokakul, W., & Ketjoy, N. (2016). Performance Analyzing of Stand-Alone PV
Hybrid Mini-Grid System with PV at DC and AC Coupling. Applied
Mechanics and Materials, 839, 23-28.
doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.839.23
Ranaweera, I., Kolhe, M. L., & Gunawardana, B. (2016). Hybrid Energy System for
Rural Electrification in Sri Lanka: Design Study. In Solar Photovoltaic System
Applications (pp. 165-184).
Sekoai, P., & Yoro, K. (2016). Biofuel Development Initiatives in Sub-Saharan
Africa: Opportunities and Challenges. Climate, 4(2). doi:10.3390/cli4020033
Sharma, K. R., Palit, D., & Krithika, P. R. (2016). Economics and Management of
Off-Grid Solar PV System. In Solar Photovoltaic System Applications (pp. 137-
164).
William Kyamuhangire, P. (2008). Perspective of Bioenergy and Jatropha in
Uganda.

Bell, S. (2012). DPSIR=A Problem Structuring Method? An exploration from the

“Imagine” approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 222(2), 350-
360. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2012.04.029

99
Boardman, G., Vining and Weimer. (2001). Cost-Benefit Analysis:Concept and Pratice.
Ness, B., Anderberg, S., & Olsson, L. (2010). Structuring problems in sustainability
science: The multi-level DPSIR framework. Geoforum, 41(3), 479-488.
doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.12.005
O´Higgins, T. (2015). A Systems Approach to Environmental Management.
Sekovski, I., Newton, A., & Dennison, W. C. (2012). Megacities in the coastal zone:
Using a driver-pressure-state-impact-response framework to address
complex environmental problems. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 96,
48-59. doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2011.07.011
Sun, S., Wang, Y., Liu, J., Cai, H., Wu, P., Geng, Q., & Xu, L. (2016). Sustainability
assessment of regional water resources under the DPSIR framework.
Journal of Hydrology, 532, 140-148. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.11.028
Tscherning, K., Helming, K., Krippner, B., Sieber, S., & Paloma, S. G. y. (2012).
Does research applying the DPSIR framework support decision making?
Land Use Policy, 29(1), 102-110. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.05.009

Bidone, E. D., & Lacerda, L. D. (2004). The use of DPSIR framework to evaluate
sustainability in coastal areas. Case study: Guanabara Bay basin, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil. Regional Environmental Change, 4(1), 5-16.
doi:10.1007/s10113-003-0059-2
Bonan, J., Pareglio, S., & Tavoni, M. (2017). Access to modern energy: a review of
barriers, drivers and impacts. Environment and Development Economics,
22(05), 491-516. doi:10.1017/s1355770x17000201
Geddam, S., Dinesh, G. K., & Sivasankar, T. (2015). Determination of thermal
performance of a box type solar cooker. Solar Energy, 113, 324-331.
doi:10.1016/j.solener.2015.01.014
MacClancy, J. (2015). Solar Cookers. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Food Issues.
Otte, P. P. (2014). Solar cooking in Mozambique—an investigation of end-user‫׳‬s
needs for the design of solar cookers. Energy Policy, 74, 366-375.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.032
Painuly, J. P. (2000). Barriers to renewable enrgy penetration:a framework for
analysis.
Perri, & Bellamy, C. (2012). Principles of Methodology: Research Design in Social
Science. In. Retrieved from http://methods.sagepub.com/book/principles-

100
 of-methodology-research-design-in-social-science
doi:10.4135/9781446288047
Tscherning, K., Helming, K., Krippner, B., Sieber, S., & Paloma, S. G. y. (2012).
Does research applying the DPSIR framework support decision making?
Land Use Policy, 29(1), 102-110. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.05.009
Vaccari, M., Vitali, F., & Tudor, T. (2017). Multi-criteria assessment of the
appropriateness of a cooking technology: A case study of the Logone
Valley. Energy Policy, 109, 66-75. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.052
Zachariadis, T., & Hadjikyriakou, C. (2016). Social Costs and Benefits of Renewable
Electricity Generation in Cyprus (1. 2016;1st 2016; ed.). Cham: Springer
International Publishing.

Painuly, J. P. (2001). Barriers to renewable energy penetration; a framework for

analysis. Renewable Energy, 24(1), 73-89. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-
1481(00)00186-5

García-Frapolli, E., Schilmann, A., Berrueta, V. M., Riojas-Rodríguez, H., Edwards,

R. D., Johnson, M., . . . Masera, O. (2010). Beyond fuelwood savings: Valuing the
economic benefits of introducing improved biomass cookstoves in the Purépecha
region of Mexico. Ecological Economics, 69(12), 2598-2605.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.08.004

Hutton, G., with, S. T. I., & Organization, E. R. W. H. (2006). Guidelines for

conducting cost–benefit analysis of household energy and health interventions.

Sameer Patel a, A. K. a., b, Anna Leavey a, Pratim Biswas. (2016). A model for cost-
benefit analysis of cooking fuel alternatives from a rural Indian household
perspective. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 56, 291–302.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.047
Wesley Foell a, n., & , S. P. b., Daniel Spreng c, Hisham Zerriffi. (2011). Household
cooking fuels and technologies in developing economies. Energy Policy.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.08.016

NG Bruce, E. R., KR Smith. (2011). Household Energy Solutions in Developing

Countries.

101
David Kureeba, N., Uganda. Wood-Based Bioenergy in Uganda:The Bkaleba
Forest Reserve.
Helga Habermehl, G. (2007). Economic evaluation of the improved household
cooking stove dissemination programme in Uganda.
Robert Tumwesigye, P. T., Nathan Makuregye,Ellady Muyambi. (2011). Key
Issues in Uganda Energy Sector:Pro-Biodiversity Consevationists in Uganda
(PROBICOU).
WWF Report Uganda 2015. Energy report for uganda, A 100% renewable energy
future by 2050.

The-Renewable-Energy-Policy-for-Uganda-2007-2017. (2007).

Gwavuya, S. G., Abele, S., Barfuss, I., Zeller, M., & Müller, J. (2012). Household
energy economics in rural Ethiopia: A cost-benefit analysis of biogas energy.
Renewable Energy, 48, 202-209. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2012.04.042
Insider, M. (2018). markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/historical-
prices/co2-emissionsrechte/euro. Retrieved from
http://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/historical-prices/co2-
emissionsrechte/euro

NFA. (2018). Vital Forestry Statistics in Uganda. Retrieved from

http://www.nfa.org.ug/index.php/component/fsf/?view=faq&catid=5

Peter Nabusiu Walekhwa a, Drake Lars b, Johnny Mugisha. (2014). Economic

viability of biogas energy production from family-sized digesters in
Uganda.

energypedia.info/wiki/Uganda_Energy_Situation. (2018, 22/02/2018). Uganda-

Energy -Situation. Retrieved from
https://energypedia.info/wiki/Uganda_Energy_Situation
Regattieri, A., Piana, F., Bortolini, M., Gamberi, M., & Ferrari, E. (2016). Innovative
portable solar cooker using the packaging waste of humanitarian supplies.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 57, 319-326.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.199

UBOS. (2017). THE UGANDA NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD

SURVEY 2016/17.

102
NFA. (2018). Vital Forestry Statistics in Uganda. Retrieved from
http://www.nfa.org.ug/index.php/component/fsf/?view=faq&catid=5

(NEMA), N. E. M. A. (2010). The Potential of Bio-fuel in Uganda.

Andrew K. Jorgenson, N. C. S. U. T. J. B. (2007). Effects of Rural and Urban
Population Dynamics and National Development on Deforestation in
Less-Developed Countries, 1990–2000.
Bidone, E. D., & Lacerda, L. D. (2004). The use of DPSIR framework to evaluate
sustainability in coastal areas. Case study: Guanabara Bay basin, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil. Regional Environmental Change, 4(1), 5-16.
doi:10.1007/s10113-003-0059-2
García-Frapolli, E., Schilmann, A., Berrueta, V. M., Riojas-Rodríguez, H., Edwards,
R. D., Johnson, M., . . . Masera, O. (2010). Beyond fuelwood savings:
Valuing the economic benefits of introducing improved biomass
cookstoves in the Purépecha region of Mexico. Ecological Economics, 69(12),
2598-2605. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.08.004
Gibson, J. (2018). Forest Loss and Economic Inequality in the Solomon Islands:
Using Small-Area Estimation to Link Environmental Change to Welfare
Outcomes. Ecological Economics, 148, 66-76.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.02.012
Lin, Y.-C., Huang, S.-L., & Budd, W. W. (2013). Assessing the environmental
impacts of high-altitude agriculture in Taiwan: A Driver-Pressure-State-
Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework and spatial emergy synthesis.
Ecological Indicators, 32, 42-50. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.009
O´Higgins, T. (2015). A Systems Approach to Environmental Management.
Ulsrud, K., Winther, T., Palit, D., Rohracher, H., & Sandgren, J. (2011). The Solar
Transitions research on solar mini-grids in India: Learning from local cases
of innovative socio-technical systems. Energy for Sustainable Development,
15(3), 293-303. doi:10.1016/j.esd.2011.06.004

Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data collection
in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. Br Dent J, 204(6), 291-
295. doi:10.1038/bdj.2008.192
Joop J. Hox, H. R. B. (2005). Data collection,primary versus secondary.

103
Perri, & Bellamy, C. (2012). Principles of Methodology: Research Design in Social
Science. In. Retrieved from http://methods.sagepub.com/book/principles-
of-methodology-research-design-in-social-science
doi:10.4135/9781446288047
Sandelowski, M. (2000a). Focus on Research Methods Whatever Happened to
Qualitative Description?
Sandelowski, M. (2000b). Focus on Research Methods Combining Qualitative
and Quantitative Sampling, Data Collection,and Analysis Techniques in
Mixed-Method Studies.

104
CHAPTER 8: APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:
Figure 15: Names of government sectors and institutions involved in the
promotion of modern and clean renewable energy technologies in Uganda

105
Appendix B:

Figure 16: Biomass classification

106
Appendix C:

Figure 17: Biomass conversion technologies

107
Appendix D:

Figure 18: Small scale bio-oil extraction equipment.

108
Appendix E:

Figure 19: Level of use for energy conversion technologies

109
Appendix F:

Figure 20: Biomass densification

110
Appendix G:

Figure 21: Properties of densified biomass

111
APPENDIX H:

Figure 22: Aerobic digestion

112
Appendix I.
Figure 23Explains the Components of total cost influencing the fuel preference of
a household and total benefit influencing the fuel preference of a household: (Sameer
Patel a, 2016)

113
APPENDIX J:

Figure 24: Total benefit influencing the fuel preference of a household

Total benefit influencing the fuel preference of a household

114
APPENDIX K:

Figure 25: Classification and summary of the factors constituting the hierarchical
map of (A) total cost and (B) total benefit. (Sameer Patel a, 2016)

115
APPENDIX L: QUESTIONAIRE

SMALL SCALE MODERN BIOENERGY AND SMALL SCALE RENEWABLE

ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES OPTIONS FOR HOUSEHOLDS (Socio-economic
analysis of small scale modern bioenergy and renewable technologies options
for households in Northern Uganda)

Questionnaire to Households

I am Achora Proscovia, a master’s student from the University of Southern

Denmark, Denmark, Europe. I am currently working on my master´s thesis to
identify the best available modern biomass and renewable energy technologies
options for households in Northern Uganda. I am particularly interested in the
possibility of households in Northern Uganda adopting modern biomass and
renewable technologies like biogas, bio-oil, bio-pellets, briquettes, solar cooker
oven, and small-scale PV-Solar system. These renewable energy and sustainable
technologies can be used by households for cooking and lighting. In addition, the
study will take into consideration the socio-economic setting, willingness, and
people´s perceptions towards the adoption of these technologies. Your help in
filling out this questionnaire would greatly help in my endeavours. Thank you in
advance for your time and co-operation in this matter. Your responses will be
treated with confidence and always data will be presented in such a way that your
identity cannot relate to specific published data.

Instructions

116
Please, use (tick) to indicate your answer among the options provided for each
question (one or more).

Part 1. General household’s information

Q1. Gender of the household head

 Male

 Female

Q2. Household size

 4

 7

 12

 More than 12

Q3. Location

 Urban

 Rural

Q4. Household´s income level in a month(US$)

 10-50

 60-120

 120-160

 200-500

 Others, please specify

…………………………………………………………………………………….

Part 2. Questions about modern biomass and small scale renewable

technologies options for households

117
Q5. Which of these are your main source of energy for cooking “tick all boxes that
apply”

 Charcoal

 Firewood

 Bio-pellets

 Bio-briquettes

 Liquid bio-fuel(bio-oil)

 Biogas

 Solar cooker

 Electricity

Others, please specify

……………………………………………………………………………………………
…….

5b) Which of these are your main sources of energy for lighting?” tick all boxes
that apply”

 Biogas

 Liquid fuel (petroleum product)

 Micro-Solar system (small scale PV-Solar)

 Electricity

Others, please specify

……………………………………………………………………………………………
…………..

Q6a. Do you think the current biomass technology is good for the environment
(solid biofuel)?

 Yes

118
  No

 I don’t know

6b. If NO, why do you think it is not good for the environment? “tick all boxes that
apply”

 Emission of fumes

 Deforestation

 Not sustainable

 Pollutes the environment

 Others (specify)

……………………………………………………………………………………
…..

Q7a. As a user of biomass energy, what are the challenges that you are facing?
“tick all the boxes that apply”

 Air pollution

 Cost

 Availability

 Quality of biomass

 Others, please specify

……………………………………………………………………………………………
……..

Q7b. Would you wish to switch to modern and clean technology?

 Yes

 No

 I don’t know

119
Q8. Of the many sources of modern bioenergy and small scale renewable energy
options for households, which one do you think is the most sustainable source?
“tick all the boxes that apply”

 Bio-pellets

 Bio-briquettes

 Liquid bio-fuel

 Biogas

 Solar cooker

 Small scale PV Solar

 Others, please specify

……………………………………………………………………………………
……

Q9. What is your assessment of other renewable energy sources for households
other than solid biofuel?

Good Bad Average I don’t know

Cost
Availability
Quality
Q10. In your opinion who should take the first step towards the production of
modern energy technologies?

 Energy distributors

 Public sectors

 NGOs

 Energy producers

 Others, please specify

………………………………………………………………………………

120
Q11. Where do you receive information about modern renewable energy
technologies?

 Door to door sales person

 Advertisement on television or radio

 Telephone

 Friends referral

 Others, please specify

……………………………………………………………………………………..

Q12. What type of promotions would encourage you to purchase modern energy
technologies? “tick all the boxes that apply”

 Loan with interest

 Discounts

 Free maintenance for a certain period

 Free installation

 Donations

 Over time payments

 others, please specify

…………………………………………………………………………………
…

Q13. Where will you get finance to invest in renewable energy technology? “tick
all the boxes that apply”

 From own saving

 credit from financial institutions

 Donation

 Cost sharing (own saving and donor funded)

121
  Others, please specify

…………………………………………………………………………..

Q14. If you were to consider switching from the current technology to a clean and
efficient technology for your home, which are the top three benefits you are likely
to enjoy? “rank your answer with 1 being the most important,2 important,3 most
likely important,4 least important and 5 not important”

Reasons Ranks

Energy security
Environmental responsibility
Time saving
Money saving
Health benefit
Once again thank you for your time

122