Comparative Study of Economics of Biogas Plants

Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 1329–1341
www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman
Comparative study of economics of different models of

family size biogas plants for state of Punjab, India
a,* b
K. Jatinder Singh , Sarbjit Singh Sooch
a
Office of Director (Farm), Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141 004, Punjab, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141 004, Punjab, India
Received 7 June 2003; accepted 12 September 2003
Abstract
Biogas, the end product of anaerobic digestion of cattle dung, can successfully supplement the cooking
fuels in the countryside areas of India, where the raw material needed for its production is plentifully
available. Because of the lack of awareness regarding selection of a suitable model and size of biogas plant,
the full potential of the biogas producing material is not harnessed, and the economic viability of biogas
technology is rendered doubtful. To facilitate this decision making, the economics of family size biogas
plants, i.e. with capacity from 1 to 6 m3 , was studied, and three prevalent models, viz. KVIC, Janta and
Deenbandu, were compared. Calculations for installation cost and annual operational cost were made for
the state of Punjab, India, where the hydraulic retention time is 40 days, and current market prices were
taken into account. Comparison of the economics revealed that the cost of installation and annual oper-
ational cost of each capacity were higher for the KVIC model, followed by the Janta and then the
Deenbandhu model. Irrespective of the model, as the capacity of the biogas plant increases, the installation,
as well as the annual operational cost increase proportionately. With increase in capacity, the payback
period decreased exponentially with the exponential character being highest for the KVIC model, followed
by the Janta and then the Deenbandhu model. However, on the basis of comparative economics, the
Deenbandhu model was found to be the cheapest and most viable model of biogas plant.
2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Biogas; Biogas plant; Economics of biogas
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-1612401960; fax: +91-1612400945.
E-mail address: erkjsingh@rediff.com (K.J. Singh).
0196-8904/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2003.09.018
1330 K.J. Singh, S.S. Sooch / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 1329–1341
1. Introduction
The economic prosperity and quality of life of a country are closely linked to the level of its per
capita energy consumption and the strategy adopted to use energy as a fundamental tool to
achieve the same. The per capita energy utilization in India is less than one seventh of the world
average [1]. In the country side, it is extremely below the required level, where India is not in a
position to meet the energy input levels to agriculture at par with advanced countries due to the
rapidly depleting sources of conventional energy, high energy cost etc. The realization that
conventional sources of energy are finite in nature has forced the world community to seek fuel
efficient and environmentally viable alternatives for many of the traditional energy consumption
approaches and focus on exploiting the infinite non-conventional energy sources for meeting day
to day energy requirements. In a country like India, where more than 70% of the total population
inhabit rural areas, one such alternative is the use of biogas as cooking fuel, which can be easily
obtained by anaerobic digestion of domestic and farm wastes, like cattle dung, abundantly
available in the country side. Cattle dung is predominantly being used either by composting it for
preparing farm yard manure or directly preparing dung cakes for burning as cooking fuels. Both
these means are highly uneconomical and unhygienic. Anaerobic digestion of cattle dung not only
provides valuable cooking fuel, i.e. biogas, and enhances the manurial value of the waste but also
provides a convenient, safe and aesthetic waste disposal method.
For improving the rural economy and enabling the best use of cattle dung to provide smoke
free cooking fuel, the cattle dung is put into a specially designed structure called a ‘‘Biogas Plant’’,
where, after anaerobic digestion of the same, biogas is produced. The remaining material, called
ÔslurryÕ, containing about 2.10% nitrogen, 0.046% phosphorous and 2.20% potassium is used as
manure for crop production. So far, about 1.75 million family size, i.e. from 1 to 6 m3 capacity [2],
biogas plants have been set up in India. For the state of Punjab, where the hydraulic retention
time (HRT) of a biogas plant is 40 days, there are three popularly known models of family size
biogas plants approved by the Ministry of Non-conventional Energy Sources (MNES),
Government of India. These are the KVIC model, Janta Model and Deenbandhu Model. Though
the basic principle of biogas production is the same in all three models, they differ in design, shape
and their requirement of space and their installation cost. Because of the lack of managerial and
technical know how regarding selection, installation and operational aspects of a biogas plant, the
full potential of the biogas producing material is not utilized, and plants often function below the
desired efficiency level. Very often, it occurs that selection of an unsuitable model of biogas plant
of capacity not matching the availability of the raw material, i.e. cattle dung, and the actual
requirement of biogas for a family renders the biogas technology an uneconomical affair. Hence,
this study has been conducted to help the farmers of the state of Punjab, India, in selecting a
suitable model of biogas plant of a particular capacity as per the available cattle dung, space and
funds.
2. Review of literature
Anaerobic fermentation is the fermentation in the absence of air of cellulose containing organic
materials, like cattle dung, poultry droppings, pig excreta, human excreta, crop residues etc. This
K.J. Singh, S.S. Sooch / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 1329–1341 1331
oxygen deficient fermentation results in the production of a combustible gas called biogas, which
contains 50–60% methane, 30–40% carbon dioxide, 1–5% hydrogen and traces of nitrogen,
hydrogen sulphide, oxygen, water vapours etc. [3].
The structural set up in which anaerobic fermentation of cellulose containing organic material
occurs, producing biogas that is collected in a gas holder and sent through a pipe line for utili-
zation under suitable pressure, is called the biogas plant. The design of a biogas plant is directly
linked to its hydraulic retention time (HRT), which may be defined as the time period during
which the mixture of cattle dung and water stays in the digester to produce the biogas before being
fully exhausted of its biochemical potential of producing biogas. The HRTs of biogas plants are
different for different regions of India. For the majority of the Indian territory, including Punjab,
it is 40 days, and hence, the study in hand is being conducted on the basis of a hydraulic retention
time of 40 days.
2.1. Designs (models) of biogas plant
There are two basic designs of biogas plant that are popular in India. These are:
(i) Floating drum type

(ii) Fixed dome type
(i) Floating drum type plants: This design was developed and popularized by the Khadi &
Village Industry Commission (KVIC) of India and, hence, is known as the KVIC model [4,5].
These were standardized in 1962 and are used widely even now. These plants have an under-
ground well shaped digester having inlet and outlet connections through pipes located at its
bottom on either side of a partition wall. An inverted drum (gas holder), made of mild steel, is
placed in the digester, which rests on the wedge shaped support and the guide frame at the level of
the partition wall. This drum can move up and down along a guide pipe with the accumulation
and disposal of gas, respectively. The weight of the drum applies pressure on the gas to make it
flow through the pipeline to the point of use.
(ii) Fixed dome type plants: In spite of the increasing popularity and acceptance of the KVIC
model, it is, by and large, beyond the reach of most of the rural people because of its high
installation cost, particularly of the fixed steel drum. So, there was an apparent need to have an
alternative inexpensive design to bring it within the reach of the poor rural population. Because of
these reasons, the fixed dome type models of biogas plant have come into place. These are:
(a) Janta biogas plant

(b) Deenbandhu biogas plant
(a) Janta model of biogas plant: This is the first fixed dome biogas plant that was introduced in
1978. The main feature of this model is that the digester and the gas holder are integrated parts of
the brick masonary structure. The digester is made of a shallow well having a dome shaped roof
on it. The inlet and outlet chambers are connected with the digester through large chutes. These
chambers are above the level of the junction of the dome and the cylindrical well. The gas pipe is
fitted on the crown of the masonary dome.
Table 1
Number of persons that may be served by and animals required for different capacity biogas plants
S. No. Capacity of biogas No. of persons that Quantity of dung No. of animals thus
plant (m3 ) may be served required (kg) required
1 1 2–3 25 2–3
2 2 4–6 50 4–5
3 3 7–9 75 6–7
4 4 9–12 100 8–9
5 5 12–15 125 9–10
6 6 14–17 150 10–12
(b) Deenbandhu model of biogas plant: The Deenbandhu model was developed by Action for
Food Production (AFPRO), New Delhi, India, in 1984. The word deenbandhu means friend of
the poor. Until now, this model is the cheapest among all the available models of biogas plant.
This model is designed on the basis of the principal of minimization of the surface area of a biogas
plant to reduce its installation cost without sacrificing the functional efficiency [6]. The design
consists of two spheres of different diameters, joined at their bases. The structure thus formed acts
as the digester or fermentation chamber, as well as the gas storage chamber. The digester is
connected with the inlet pipe and outlet tank. The upper part above the normal slurry level of the
outlet tank is designed to accommodate the slurry to be displaced from the digester with the
generation and accumulation of biogas.
2.2. Selection of size of biogas plant
The size (capacity) of a biogas plant means the quantity of biogas (m3 ), which we can get from
it on a 24 h basis. The selection of the size of biogas plant to be installed depends upon the number
of persons to be served or the quantity of cow dung available. Taking one parameter as the
criterion of selection, the other can be calculated. Per person, 0.34–0.42 m3 of biogas is required
for cooking food, and 1 kg of cattle dung has a potential of producing about 0.04 m3 of gas.
Hence, once the process is set in, 25 kg of dung is required per 1 m3 of biogas production [7].
Normally, 10–20 kg of dung is collected from ordinary cattle. The calculations, hence made, are
shown in Table 1.
3. Method and material
For studying the economics of different models, viz. KVIC, Janta and Deenbandhu, of family
size (1–6 m3 ) biogas plant, the cost of construction and installation, annual operational cost and
income from biogas thus produced are calculated by taking into account the current prices of the
local market of Ludhiana city, Punjab (India). The Government of India, for promoting the use of
biogas, irrespective of the model and the capacity of biogas plant to be installed by any family, is
providing a fixed amount of subsidy of Rs. 1800/- through its nodal agencies. Hence, for knowing
the actual cost to be incurred for installation of a biogas plant, an amount of Rs. 1800/- is uni-
formly subtracted from the calculated cost of each capacity and each model.
3.1. Cost of installation
The cost of material and labour required for construction and installation of the KVIC model is
calculated as shown in Table 2. It is worth mentioning here that the costs of the steel gas holder
and the cost of the rest of the civil construction work are taken in the ratio of 2:3 because the steel
gas holder constitutes about 40% of the total cost of installation as mentioned earlier also. The
cost of material and labour required for construction and installation of the Janta and
Deenbandhu models are shown in Tables 3 and 4 respectively.
3.2. Cost of dung required
For calculating the annual operational cost of a biogas plant, besides other costs, we also need
the cost of the dung required to run it. All other operational costs being the same for both cases,
the input cost of dung may differ depending upon whether, previously, the dung was being used as
manure or as fuel by making dung cakes. In the study in hand, an averaged value of both cases
has been considered to calculate the cost of the annual dung requirement.
For the 1 m3 capacity biogas plant, 25 kg of cow dung is required daily. For calculating the cost
of dung in terms of manure, the direct cost of fresh dung, i.e. Rs. 0.125 per kg, has been taken into
Table 2
Calculation of cost of construction and installation of KVIC model
Name of component Cost of material/labour (Rs.) required for biogas plant of capacity
1 m3 2 m3 3 m3 4 m3 5 m3 6 m3
A. Civil construction
1. Bricks 2800 3444 3871 4480 4830 5222
2. Cement 1500 1950 2550 2850 3150 3450
3. Sand 245 280 357 406 441 476
4. Brick blast 95 126 189 210 262 315
5. R.C.C. pipe (dia. 10 cm) 128 156 184 252 256 260
6. Steel gas holder with guide 3293 4124 4959 5676 6189 6731
frame
7. Paint 172 230 287 316 345 374
Subtotal of A 8233 10,310 12,397 14,190 15,473 16,828
B. Labour
1. For digging the pit 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
2. For construction 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
3. Mason 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Subtotal of B 2700 3200 3700 4200 4700 5200
C. Cost of supply line 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425

D. Total cost (A+B+C) 12,358 14,935 17,522 19,735 21,598 23,453
E. Subsidy 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800
F. Net cost of Installation (D–E) 10,558 13,135 15,722 17,935 19,798 21,653
Table 3
Calculation of cost of construction and installation of Janta model
1 m3 2 m3 3 m3 4 m3 5 m3 6 m3
1. Bricks 2100 3500 4900 5600 5950 6300
2. Cement 3000 3750 4500 6000 6450 6750
3. Sand 280 322 504 602 651 700
4. Brick blast 170 242 305 452 525 598
5. Stone blast 298 402 508 595 700 805
6. G.I. pipe (dia. 2.5 cm) 27 27 27 27 27 27
7. Reinforcement steel rod 252 252 280 350 385 420
8. Paint 172 230 287 345 345 345
Subtotal of A 6307 8725 11,311 13,971 15,033 15,945
B. Labour
3. Mason 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Subtotal of B 2200 2700 3200 3700 4200 4700

D. Total cost (A + B + C) 9932 12,850 15,936 19,096 20,658 22,070
E. Subsidy 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800
F. Net cost of installation (D ) E) 8132 11,050 14,136 17,296 18,858 20,270
account, but for calculating it in terms of fuel, firstly the LPG equivalent of the dung cakes that
may be prepared from it has been calculated. Then, the prevailing price of LPG, i.e. Rs. 14.50 per
kg, has been used to calculate the cost of dung in terms of fuel. The detailed calculations are
shown in Table 5.
3.3. Annual operational cost
Annual operational cost of a biogas plant involves the annual depreciation on civil construction
work and other installations, annual maintenance charges and cost of dung required to run it per
annum. As per established standards, the life of the civil work, gas holder and gas supply line is
considered to be 25, 10 and 20 years, respectively, rendering the corresponding annual depre-
ciation to be 4%, 10% and 5%. Further, the maintenance charges are taken to be 2% of the net
installation cost. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India, conducted a survey covering
biogas plant holders in the state of Punjab, which revealed that no farmer has availed a bank loan
for installation of a biogas plant. Hence, interest on the initial installation cost has not been taken
into account while calculating the annual operational cost of a biogas plant. However, the annual
operational cost of the KVIC, Janta and Deenbandhu models of biogas plant for capacities
varying from 1 to 6 m3 are calculated and shown in Tables 6–8 respectively.
Table 4
Calculation of cost of construction and installation of Deenbandhu model
1 m3 2 m3 3 m3 4 m3 5 m3 6 m3
1. Bricks 980 1400 1820 2240 2660 3080
2. Cement 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2250
3. Sand 245 315 385 490 595 665
4. Brick blast 147 178 242 294 325 357
5. Stone blast 350 438 525 612 665 700
6. G.I. pipe (dia. 2.5cm) 27 27 27 27 27 27
7. R.C.C. pipe (dia. 15cm) 108 108 108 108 108 108
8. Reinforcement steel rod 70 98 140 168 196 210
9. Paint 115 115 230 230 287 345
Subtotal of A 2942 3879 4977 5969 6963 7742
B. Labour
3. Mason 600 800 1000 1000 1200 1400
Subtotal of B 1800 2200 2700 2800 3300 3700

D. Total cost (A + B + C) 6167 7504 9102 10,194 11,688 12,867
E. Subsidy 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800
F. Net cost of installation (D ) E) 4367 5704 7302 8394 9888 11,067
Table 5
Calculation of annual cost of dung required in terms of manure as well as fuel
Capacity of Dung require- Cost of dung as LPG equivalent Cost of LPG i.e. Averaged cost of
biogas plant ment manure of dung cost of dung in dung
(m3 ) (kg) (Rs.) (kg) terms of fuel (Rs.)
(Rs.)
1 9125 1141 95.7 1388 1265
2 18,250 2281 191.4 2775 2528
3 27,375 3422 287.1 4163 3793
4 36,500 4563 382.8 5551 5057
5 45,625 5703 478.5 6938 6321
6 54,750 6844 574.2 8326 7585
where
Annual dung requirement ðkgÞ ¼ Plant capacity 25 365
Dung wt 0:30 0:43

LPG equivalent of dung ¼
12:3
0.30––because dry weight of cakes is 30% of the weight of dung used to prepare them, 0.43––because 1 m3 of biogas ¼ 0.43 kg of LPG,
12.3––because 1 m3 of biogas ¼ 12.3 kg of dung cakes.
Table 6
Calculation of annual operational cost of KVIC model
Name of component with life Annual Annual depreciation/input cost (Rs.) of the biogas plants of
deprecia- capacity
tion rate 1 m3 2 m3 3 m3 4 m3 5 m3 6 m3
(%)
1. Civil construction (Table 2) 4 198 247 298 341 371 404
2. Gas holder (Table 2) 10 329 412 496 568 619 673
3. Gas supply line (Table 2) 5 71 71 71 71 71 71
4. Maintenance charges (% of 2 247 299 350 395 432 469
installation cost) (Table 2)
5. Cost of cow dung (Table 5) – 1265 2528 3793 5057 6321 7585
Annual operational cost 2110 3557 5008 6432 7814 9202
Table 7
Calculation of annual operational cost of Janta model
Name of component with life Annual Annual depreciation/input cost (Rs.) for the biogas plant of
deprecia- capacity
tion rate 1 m3 2 m3 3 m3 4 m3 5 m3 6 m3
(%)
Table 8
Calculation of annual operational cost of Deenbandhu model
Name of component with life Annual Annual depreciation/input cost (Rs.) for the biogas plant of
deprecia- capacity
tion rate 1 m3 2 m3 3 m3 4 m3 5 m3 6 m3
(%)
3.4. Income from biogas plant
If cow dung is used to run a biogas plant, it proves to be a source of double income. Firstly, the
biogas produced is a fuel of appreciable calorific value. Secondly, the residual slurry is a good
Table 9
Calculation of annual income from a biogas plant
Capacity Annual bio- Net quantity LPG equivalent of Income Dried slurry Income Total
of biogas gas produc- available for net quantity avail- from gas available from income
plant tion (ABP) use (NQA) able (LPGE) (IFG) dried (DSA) slurry (TI)
(m3 ) (m3 ) (m3 ) (kg) (Rs.) (kg) (IFS) (Rs.)
(Rs.)
1 365 292 125.6 1821 2738 685 2506
2 730 584 251.1 3641 5475 1369 5010
3 1095 876 376.7 5462 8213 2053 7515
4 1460 1168 502.2 7282 10,950 2738 10,020
5 1825 1460 627.8 9103 13,688 3422 12,525
6 2190 1752 753.4 10,924 16,425 4106 15,030
where NQA ¼ 0.8 · ABP, LPGE ¼ 0.43 · NQA, IFG ¼ 14.5 · LPGE, DSA ¼ 0.3 · Annual dung requirement, IFS ¼
0.25 · DSA, TI ¼ IFG + IFS.
manure of appreciable nutritional value. It is worth mentioning here that the quantity of residual
slurry is the same as that of the cow dung fed in a biogas plant.
While calculating the income from a biogas plant, it has been presumed that only 80% of the
gas produced is available for cooking and 20% is wasted due to one or the other unavoidable
reasons. Here also, the LPG equivalent of the biogas produced is calculated for finding the income
from biogas. The prevailing price of dried slurry, which is by weight about 30% of the total
residual, is taken to be Rs. 0.25 per kg. The detailed calculations of the income from a biogas
plant for capacities varying from 1 to 6 m3 are shown in Table 9.
3.5. Net economics
The economics of a biogas plant involves the calculation of annual profit and pay back period
for the different models, where
Annual profit ¼ Annual income Annual operational cost
and
Cost of installation
Pay back period ¼
Annual profit
Accordingly, the economics of the KVIC, Janta and Deenbandhu models for capacities varying
from 1 to 6 m3 are calculated and given in Tables 10–12, respectively.
Table 10
Calculation of economics of KVIC model of biogas plant
Name of component For biogas plant of capacity
1 m3 2 m3 3 m3 4 m3 5 m3 6 m3
1. Installation cost (Rs.) (Table 2) 10,558 13,135 15,722 17,935 19,798 21,653
2. Actual income (Rs.) (Table 9) 2506 5010 7515 10020 12525 15030
3. Annual operational cost (Table 6) 2110 3557 5008 6432 7814 9202
4. Annual profit (Rs.) (2–3) 396 1453 2507 3588 4711 5828
5. Payback period (years) (1 ‚ 4) 26.66 9.03 6.27 5.85 4.20 3.71
Table 11
Calculation of economics of Janta model of biogas plant
1 m3 2 m3 3 m3 4 m3 5 m3 6 m3
1. Installation cost (Rs.) (Table 3) 8132 11,050 14,136 17,296 18,858 20,270
2. Annual income (Rs.) (Table 9) 2506 5010 7515 10,020 12,525 15,030
3. Annual operational cost (Rs.) 1787 3205 4635 6069 7406 8735
(Table 7)
4. Annual profit (Rs.) (2–3) 719 1805 2880 3951 5119 6295
Table 12
Calculation of economics of Deenbandhu model of biogas plant
1 m3 2 m3 3 m3 4 m3 5 m3 6 m3
1. Installation cost (Rs.) (Table 4) 4367 5704 7302 8394 9888 11067
2. Actual income (Rs.) (Table 9) 2506 5010 7515 10,020 12,525 15,030
3. Annual operational cost (Rs.) 1577 2904 4245 5571 6905 8223
(Table 8)
4. Annual profit (Rs.) (2–3) 929 2106 3270 4449 5620 6807
4. Results and discussion
The net cost of installation, annual operational cost and pay back period of three models are
plotted in Figs. 1–3, respectively.
As indicated by Fig. 1, for all the capacities varying from 1 to 6 m3 , the cost of installation of
the KVIC model is highest, followed by that of the Janta and then the Deenbandhu models. The
reason for the maximum cost of installation being incurred for the KVIC model is certainly the
additional cost of the steel drum used as the gas holder, which takes about 40% of the total cost of
the installation, while in the Janta and Deenbandhu models, the R.C.C. dome constructed at the
top of the digester acts as the gas holder. Further, the cost of installation of the Deenbandhu
model has come out to be the minimum because the constructional principle of minimization of
the surface area has been applied during design and construction of the digester and gas holder
(top dome structure) of this model without affecting the functional efficiency. Certainly, less
material is needed to construct this model, and hence, there is minimum installation cost.
Similar to the cost of installation, the annual operational cost of a biogas plant for all the
capacities varying from 1 to 6 m3 is also highest for the KVIC model followed by that for the
Janta and then the Deenbandhu models (Fig. 2). While calculating the annual operational cost,
though the cost of dung as input for corresponding capacities is the same for all three models, all
other components, like depreciation, maintenance charges etc., are fixed percentages of the
respective costs of installation. This is the basic reason for the trends of the cost of installation and
annual operational cost being similar for all the capacities varying from 1 to 6 m3 .
Fig. 1. Comparison of net cost of installation of different models of biogas plant.
Fig. 2. Comparison of annual operational cost of different models of biogas plant.
Fig. 3 reveals that the payback period for all the capacities varying from 1 to 6 m3 is highest for
the KVIC model, followed by that of the Janta model and then by the Deenbandhu model. Again,
the reason for this trend is the trends shown in the cost of installation and the annual operational
cost of the different models. Secondly, as the capacity of the biogas plant in all three models goes
on increasing, the payback period goes on decreasing, conforming to the standard trends of the
economics of installation and operation of any technical project [8].
Fig. 3. Comparison of payback periods of different models of biogas plant.
5. Conclusions
1. For all the capacities varying from 1 to 6 m3 , the cost of installation and, hence, the annual
operational cost is the highest for the KVIC model followed by the Janta and then the
Deenbandhu models of biogas plant.
2. For all the models, as the capacity of the biogas plant increases, the cost of installation, as well
as the annual operational cost, increase proportionally.
3. For all the capacities varying from 1 to 6 m3 , the payback period is the highest for the KVIC
model followed by the Janta and then the Deenbandhu models of biogas plant.
4. For all the models, as the capacity of the biogas plant increases, the payback period decreases
exponentially with the exponential character being the highest for the KVIC model, followed
by the Janta and then the Deenbandhu models.
5. For all the capacities varying from 1 to 6 m3 , the Deenbandhu model of biogas plant is the
cheapest model as far as the cost of installation, annual operational cost and payback period
is concerned.
References
[1] Dubey AN. Alternative sources of energy. Employment News, Weekly, New Delhi, 2–8 May 1998.
[2] Indian Standard––Family Size Biogas Plant. Code of Practice. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 1991.
[3] Duggal KN, Vyas SK, Sandhar NS. Biogas technology. Ludhiana: USG Publishers and Distributors; 1987.
[4] KVIC––A pamphlet on design details of biogas plant. Directorate of Biogas, Khadi and Village Industries
Commission, Bombay.
[5] KVIC––A pamphlet on gobar gas––why and how. Directorate of Biogas, Khadi and Village Industries Commission,
Bombay.
[6] Singh JB, Raymond MM, Dhussa A. Manual on Deenbandhu biogas plant. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill
Publication; 1987.
[7] Chawla OP. Advances in biogas technology. New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural Research; 1986.
[8] Singh S. Comparative study of community biogas plant and family size biogas plant. UG Project Report. Punjab
Agricultural University, Ludhiana, 1999.

Comparative Study of Economics of Biogas Plants

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparative Study of Economics of Biogas Plants

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 1329–1341

Comparative study of economics of diﬀerent models of

Keywords: Biogas; Biogas plant; Economics of biogas

2.1. Designs (models) of biogas plant

(i) Floating drum type

(a) Janta biogas plant

2.2. Selection of size of biogas plant

3. Method and material

3.1. Cost of installation

3.2. Cost of dung required

C. Cost of supply line 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425

C. Cost of supply line 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425

3.3. Annual operational cost

C. Cost of supply line 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425

Dung wt 0:30 0:43

3.4. Income from biogas plant

3.5. Net economics

4. Results and discussion

Fig. 1. Comparison of net cost of installation of diﬀerent models of biogas plant.

Fig. 2. Comparison of annual operational cost of diﬀerent models of biogas plant.

Fig. 3. Comparison of payback periods of diﬀerent models of biogas plant.

You might also like