Indonesia 215
Risks associated only with household- level biogas
Risks associated to household biogas are different from the large scale for electricity, which will be explored in this section. For example, the barriers of collective biogas management at the community level would be unlikely to factor
in the large- scale biogas- for-electricity pathway, since the plants would be run
as a larger- scale operation with suitable management mechanisms and practices.
Similarly, household- level gender discrepancy relates to unpaid work on the
smallholding, and likewise, accessibility of the feedstock relates to shortages in
the quantity of feedstock for household biogas.
Other risks in the household biogas pathway result mainly from the way the
biogas distribution schemes have been designed and implemented. These risks
include poor maintenance and infrastructure as well as bureaucratic issues
among the potential beneficiaries. The lack of support for maintenance of
household systems prevents the rural users from fully benefiting from their
biogas installation. According to Berhe et al. (2017), the successful utilisation
and maintenance of biogas infrastructure is commonly the joint responsibility of
the owner and technical personnel. Clearly, when the capacity of the farmer
(financial, skills, knowledge, etc.) is lower, the likelihood of this risk is higher.
Increasing the capacity of these actors is necessary for mitigating the risks associated with poor maintenance and infrastructure.
Additionally, there are a number of risks on this pathway that may trigger
the users to immediately revert back to conventional energy. For example,
when biogas collective management is not well organised, it will create a
higher likelihood of the users to seeking easily accessed firewood or even LPG.
This is similar to other risks, such as poor maintenance, bureaucratic issues,
inadequate incentives, and gender issues: where the farmers face limited
options of biogas usage, there is a higher chance for them to seek a more
familiar energy option.
Risks associated only with biogas- for-electricity generation
Risks exclusively attached to the biogas- for-electricity pathway concern the reliability of the electricity generation, as well as the increased electricity tariff,
both of which were suggested by PLN. PLN actually purchased 1 MW of POMEbased electricity in 2015 to distribute it through on- grid channels (Pasadena
Engineering Indonesia, 2014). PLN was concerned about whether or not the
electricity delivered to the consumers would be as stable as the existing commercial electricity generators (hydroelectricity, thermal, diesel, gas, and geothermal power). Moreover, the quality and quantity of POME could also have
implications for the methane proportion in biogas (Yacob et al., 2006). While
the common efficiency of natural gas- generated electricity ranges around
38–42% (Breeze, 2014), biogas- generated electrical efficiency ranges between
28% and 40% (Firdaus et al., 2017; Shi, 2011). Second, it was thought that the
high operational costs would also contribute to the risks of on- grid electricity.
Risks associated only with household- level biogas
Risks associated to household biogas are different from the large scale for electricity, which will be explored in this section. For example, the barriers of collective biogas management at the community level would be unlikely to factor
in the large- scale biogas- for-electricity pathway, since the plants would be run
as a larger- scale operation with suitable management mechanisms and practices.
Similarly, household- level gender discrepancy relates to unpaid work on the
smallholding, and likewise, accessibility of the feedstock relates to shortages in
the quantity of feedstock for household biogas.
Other risks in the household biogas pathway result mainly from the way the
biogas distribution schemes have been designed and implemented. These risks
include poor maintenance and infrastructure as well as bureaucratic issues
among the potential beneficiaries. The lack of support for maintenance of
household systems prevents the rural users from fully benefiting from their
biogas installation. According to Berhe et al. (2017), the successful utilisation
and maintenance of biogas infrastructure is commonly the joint responsibility of
the owner and technical personnel. Clearly, when the capacity of the farmer
(financial, skills, knowledge, etc.) is lower, the likelihood of this risk is higher.
Increasing the capacity of these actors is necessary for mitigating the risks associated with poor maintenance and infrastructure.
Additionally, there are a number of risks on this pathway that may trigger
the users to immediately revert back to conventional energy. For example,
when biogas collective management is not well organised, it will create a
higher likelihood of the users to seeking easily accessed firewood or even LPG.
This is similar to other risks, such as poor maintenance, bureaucratic issues,
inadequate incentives, and gender issues: where the farmers face limited
options of biogas usage, there is a higher chance for them to seek a more
familiar energy option.
Risks associated only with biogas- for-electricity generation
Risks exclusively attached to the biogas- for-electricity pathway concern the reliability of the electricity generation, as well as the increased electricity tariff,
both of which were suggested by PLN. PLN actually purchased 1 MW of POMEbased electricity in 2015 to distribute it through on- grid channels (Pasadena
Engineering Indonesia, 2014). PLN was concerned about whether or not the
electricity delivered to the consumers would be as stable as the existing commercial electricity generators (hydroelectricity, thermal, diesel, gas, and geothermal power). Moreover, the quality and quantity of POME could also have
implications for the methane proportion in biogas (Yacob et al., 2006). While
the common efficiency of natural gas- generated electricity ranges around
38–42% (Breeze, 2014), biogas- generated electrical efficiency ranges between
28% and 40% (Firdaus et al., 2017; Shi, 2011). Second, it was thought that the
high operational costs would also contribute to the risks of on- grid electricity.