Biogas For Transport Vehicles Final Report

Government of Nepal
Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment
Alternative Energy Promotion Centre

Khumaltar, Lalitpur
Feseaibility Study of Usage of Biogas in

Transport Vehicles
Prepared by:
One Planet Solution Pvt. Ltd.

Chakupat, Patan
February, 2015
ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS

AEPC
SWM
DDC
GoN
NGOs
VDC
Pvt. Ltd.
Sq. m
m2
Km
Alternative Energy Promotion Centre

Solid Waste Management
District Development Committee
Government of Nepal
Non-Governmental Organizations
Village Development Committee
Private Limited
Square Meter
Square Meter
Kilometer
ft2
Square feet
m3
VDCs
MoSTE
CBS
BKM
CC
CS
C:N
ES
KRM
KMC
LSMC
MTM
NS
WS
Cubic meter
Village Development Committees
Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment
Central Bureau of Statics7
Bhaktapur Municipality
City Core
Central Sector
Carbon: Nitrogen ratio
East Sector
Kritipur Municipality
Kathmandu metropolitan city
Lalitpur sub metropolitan city
MadhyapurThimi Municipality
North Sector
West Sector
Acknowledgement
We are deeply indebted to scavengers, officers of 5 municipalities in Kathmandu valley,
Environment Management Units within those municipalities and organizations that have directly
or indirectly helped us to make it possible to compile this report in its present form .We are
grateful to Mr. GyanBajraShrestha officer from Kirtipur Municipality and other organizations
related to SWM within Kirtipur Municipality. We would like to thank Mr. Dilip Kumar Swal
and Mr. Ram GopalPrajapati officers Solid waste management departmrnt of Bhaktapur
municipality. We are also thankful to Mr.Dhan Narayan Shah officer of Kalimati Vegetable and
fruit market . We would like to thank Er. Rabin Man Shakya Environmental Engineer and Mr.
ChitraBahadurGurung officer from Kathmandu Metropolitan city. We are grateful to Er.
PradeepAmatya Environmental Engineer from Lalitpur sub metropolitan city. We would like to
thank Mr. TulsiBhakta Kaka officer from MadhyapurThimi Municipality.
We are grateful to NESS laboratory that helped us in testing different parameters.
ii
Table of Contents
ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS ........................................................................................ i
Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................................... ii
CHAPTER 1 :
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
1.1.
Background .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2.
Objective of Study ............................................................................................................... 2
1.3.
Scope of work ...................................................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 2 :
2.1.
Methodology ..................................................................................................... 4
Study Area ........................................................................................................................... 4

2.1.1.
Kathmandu Metropolitan City .................................................................................. 6
2.1.2.
Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City ................................................................................ 7
2.1.3.
Bhaktapur Municipality ............................................................................................ 8
2.1.4.
MadhyapurThimi Municipality................................................................................. 8
2.1.5.
Kirtipur Municipality ................................................................................................ 8
2.1.6. Table: Comparison of Waste in 5 Municipalities of Kathmandu Valley (based on

secondary data) ....................................................................................................................... 9
2.1.7.
2.2.
Kalimati Fruit and Vegetable Market ....................................................................... 9
Methodology Adopted ....................................................................................................... 10

2.2.1.
Literature Review.................................................................................................... 10
2.2.2.
Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 11
2.2.3.
Waste Characterization and Quantification ............................................................ 11
2.2.4.
Laboratory Analysis ................................................................................................ 12
2.2.5.
Data Compilation and Analysis .............................................................................. 13
2.2.6.
Calculation of Biogas Potential .............................................................................. 14
2.2.7.
Finance and Institutional ......................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER 3 :
Results and Discussion .................................................................................. 16
3.1.
Quantification of Waste ..................................................................................................... 16
3.2.
Composition of waste ........................................................................................................ 16
3.3.
Chemical parameters .......................................................................................................... 17
3.4.
Estimation of biogas potential ........................................................................................... 18
3.5.
Suitable Technology for Piloting of Biogas usage in Transport Vehicles ......................... 19

Stage 1: Sort the wastes and separate the organic fraction ................................................... 19
Stage 2: Use the organic fraction and produce Biogas ......................................................... 20

Stage 3: Process Bio-slurry / residue to make organic fertilizer ........................................... 24
Estimated Budget .................................................................................................................. 25
3.6.
Biogas cleaning and upgrading .......................................................................................... 25
3.7.
Business Case of the Biogas and Fertilizer Production: .................................................... 28

3.7.1.
Introduction: ............................................................................................................ 28
3.7.2.
Capital Requirement: .............................................................................................. 29
3.7.3.
Operating Cost: ....................................................................................................... 29
3.7.4.
Other Assumptions: ................................................................................................ 30
3.7.5.
Business Case: ........................................................................................................ 30
3.8.
Scenario #1 Base Scenario (Normal Prices): .................................................................. 31
3.9.
Scenario #2 Full Benefits Scenario ................................................................................. 31
3.10.
Scenario #3 Clean Fuel at a Premium - Safaa Tempo Scenario: ................................ 31
3.11.
Scenario #4 Aggressive Pricing Scenario: .................................................................. 31
3.12.
Risks: .............................................................................................................................. 32
3.13.
Summary: ....................................................................................................................... 32
3.14.
External Benefits and Costs of Waste-to-CNG for Transport........................................ 33

Negative Secondary Impacts and Externalities of Diesel Fuel: .......................... 33
3.14.2.
Positive Secondary Impacts and Externalities of Biogas: ................................... 34
3.14.3.
Summary: ............................................................................................................ 37
3.15.
3.14.1.
Institutional Capacity of Sajha Yatayat .......................................................................... 37

3.15.1.
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 37
3.15.2.
Profile and Role of Sajha Yatayat ....................................................................... 37
3.15.3.
Sajha YatayatGrowth Strategy .......................................................................... 38
3.15.4.
Interview with Gopal Prasad Pant (accountant) .................................................. 38
3.15.5.
Summary of Sajhas Institutional Capacity......................................................... 39
CHAPTER 4 :
Conclusion and Recommendations .............................................................. 41
CHAPTER 5 :
References....................................................................................................... 42
CHAPTER 6 :
ANNEX ........................................................................................................... 45
ANNEX 1 QUANTIFICATION OF WASTE .......................................................................... 45

ANNEX 2 COMPOSITION OF WASTE ................................................................................. 49
ANNEX 3 GRAPHS OF RESULTS FROM NESS LABORATORY .................................... 61
ANNEX 4 WASTE FLOW PATTERN IN MUNICIPALITIES OF KATHMANDU

VALLEY ...................................................................................................................................... 64
NEX 6- LAB REPORTS AND LOG BOOK OF MUNICIPALITIES .................................. 65
ANNEX 7-PHOTOGRAPHS ..................................................................................................... 73
ANNEX 7-CALCULATIONS .................................................................................................... 88
Feasibility Study of Usage of Biogas in Transport Vehicles
CHAPTER 1 :
1.1.
2014/15
INTRODUCTION
Background
Production of waste materials is an unavoidable part of human society. Disposal of municipal

solid waste was easy in early times as the waste generated was very less and land available for
disposal of wastes was large (Tchobanoglous et al, 1993). With increase in the global population
and the rising demand for food and other essentials, there has been a rise in the amount of waste
being generated.
With the waste generation increasing, the scarcity of resources and the soaring pollution level
and progressive understanding of environmental problems and environmental awareness among
public necessitated the need for other treatment options than land disposal. Nowadays, there are
many treatment and disposal options for municipal solid waste among which composting,
incineration, land filling and production of different biofuels are some. The choice among these
options is based on different technical and economic factors. In most developing countries,
municipal solid wastes are disposed of in non-engineered landfill sites which have always been
known to generate greenhouse gases (GHG). In developed nations, conversely, municipal solid
wastes are treated through such advanced methods as controlled incineration and production of
biofuels because of both increasing need of using the waste as resource and stringent
environmental regulations (Taye, 2009).
In case of Kathmandu valley major five municipalities Kathmandu, Lalitpur, Bhaktapur,
Kirtipur, Thimi and Kalimati fruit and vegetable market dispose the solid waste to the landfill for
management of solid waste. At present these municipalities are investing large amount of money
in transportation of solid waste up to landfill. The increase in solid waste leads decrease in
lifetime of landfill which requires plans for building new landfill in addition to this it will
increase the cost for transporting the solid waste to landfill.
Biogas can be cleaned to remove impurities and upgraded to pure bio-methane. It can then be
used as a renewable transport fuel in vehicles designed to run on compressed natural gas (CNG)
or liquefied natural gas (LNG). The greenhouse gas savings of bio-methane fuelled vehicles can
be significant. Methane fuelled vehicles can also have extremely low emissions of local
Alternative Energy Promotion Center
One Planet Solution Pvt.Ltd.
2014/15
pollutants, including NOx and particulates (PM2.5 and PM10) when compared to modern petrol
and diesel vehicles.
Environmentally friendly transportation (Safa Tempos, electric cars etc) are plying in the streets
of Kathmandu, however the majority of the vehicles are highly dominated by the ones using
fossil fuels. Biogas is a proven fuel that can replace the traditional fuel in CNG engines. The ever
increasing price of fossil fuel, an increasing need for renewable fuel sources, dependence on
imported fuels and need for better local air quality and the need for clean transport fuels in urban
areas are some of the reasons we need to shift from vehicles using fossil fuel to renewable
energy. AEPC has been promoting the use of large biogas in the commercial, institutional,
community and municipal sector since July 2012. The GoN has also announced subsidy for all
the above mentioned sectors.
SajhaYatayat is a transport cooperative that was established over 50 years ago to provide public
transportation services in Nepal. It was closed down a few years ago because of poor
management, however the institutional structure of SajhaYatayat has been re-organized and it
has been revived with 16 new large buses under a new board and management. One of their
objectives is to provide clean public transportation system in Kathmandu. In order to reduce their
carbon footprint, they are exploring the possibility of utilizing renewable energy, particularly
biogas to run their vehicles.
One Planet Solution executed this project in partnership with Seed Bangla, Bangladesh under
AEPC.
1.2.
Objective of Study
To determine the biogas potential from organic waste of Kathmandu Valley (5 municipalities
within KTM Valley) for usage in transport vehicles and propose a suitable technology for
piloting
1.3.
Scope of work
The scope of work is:

Part I: Determination of Potential of Biogas from Waste of Kathmandu Valley (Municipal Solid
Waste (MSW)
Quantification of the waste production in each 5 municipality within Kathmandu Valley.
2014/15
The data has to be collected in association with the respective municipality.
Determination of resource availability.
Determine the organic waste fraction of the different samples of waste using an approved
waste characterization protocol in 5 municipalities of Kathmandu Valley.
Analyze the an-aerobically digestible waste fraction from the organic fraction of MSW.
Assess the potential of biogas energy from the waste fractions generated in the 5
municipalities of Kathmandu
Obtain information and evaluate technologies suitable for minimizing the amount of
waste going to landfill.
Part II: Propose a Suitable Technology for Piloting of Biogas usage in Transport Vehicles
To conduct detailed study on and recommend cost effective solutions for modification of
diesel and petrol engines for usage of biogas as primary fuel.
To recommend appropriate biogas fuel storage systems.
To recommend appropriate fuel quality, including upgrading techniques of biogas to

make it suitable to use as a transport fuel.
To recommend on the exhaust standards.
To analyze the costs associated with biogas in transport applications including cost of
upgrading, compressing and filling stations.
To analyze the economics associated with biogas use as a transport fuel.
Part III: Capacity Assessment study on the Institutional Setup of SajhaYatayat Ltd.
To conduct an institutional setup study of SajhaYatayat to assess the institutional

capacity including financial and other aspects.
To assess the required fuel and other needs of SajhaYatayat considering its future plan
CHAPTER 2 :
2014/15
Methodology
2.1.Study Area
Name of Municipality
Lalitpur sub metropolitan city
Kathmandu metropolitan city
Kritipur Municipality
Madhyapurthimi Municipality
Sampling place
Kharibot Transfer Station
Teku Transfer Station
Alabu Landfill site
Sundharghat Dumping site
Teku Transfer Station
The study area included five municipalities in Kathmandu valley namely Kathmandu
Metropolitan City, Lalitpur Sub Metropolitan City, BhaktapurMunicipality, MadhyapurThimi
Municipality and Kirtipur Municipality. In addition to them, Kalimati fruit and vegetable market
was also covered. During the course of this project transfer station, landfill, dumping sites, or
waste collection points were chosen for the sampling. Samples were collected from vehicles that
transport waste to the landfill. Similarly in Kalimati vegetable and fruit market waste was
sampled from waste collection point from where waste is transported to landfill .The study area
for this project is shown in fig below.
2014/15
2014/15
Fig 1:Study area of project

2.1.1.
Kathmandu Metropolitan City
Teku transfer station was chosen for the study of waste of Kathmandu and MadhypurThimi
Municipalities since waste from those municipalities are collected at the transfer station before
transporting the waste to Sisdole landfill site.
As per the KMC office, the Total Population of the Kathmandu Metropolitan city is 1,205,000.
The total waste generation is 362 tons/day which is equivalent to waste Generation rate of 0.3
kg/day/p.
Different methods of waste collection have been practiced in Kathmandu Metropolitan city.
Curb-side and on-ground collection system has been widely practiced in KMC.
At present, KMC has implemented PPP model for waste management of Kathmandu. Currently
there are about 35-40 private sectors involved in the waste collection at different wards of
Kathmandu. They charge Rs 100-250 as a service charge and collect the wastes on daily basis.
Currently, KMC does not collect the solid waste of different sectors separately. Some private
organizations are involved in collecting wastes from high organic waste generation sectors like
Slaughter house, Tarkari and falful bazaar,etc. Moreover, even the hazardous waste from
industries and medical waste from hospitals are not being collected separately and are mixed
with the organic wastes. Before, Incinerator plant was installed in near Teku transfer station for
managing those toxic wastes but due to the pressure from local people operation of Incinerator
plant was stopped.
Almost all waste collected is mixed together and very small amount of waste are separated at the
source for special use like community composting in the Kathmandu Valley. Most of the street
sweeping is carried out by the KMC. Waste collection equipment of various capacities are
currently used in the Valley, for example, 1.7m3 tractor drawn, 3.4-4.5m3 tipper truck, 3-6m3
dumper. The collected waste is taken to the Balkhu transfer station where the segregation of
waste is done. The waste collected by the municipality is finally disposed to Sisdole Landfill site
at Okharpauwa VDCwhich is 33km away from the main city.

2.1.2.
2014/15
Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City
Kharibot transfer station was chosen for study of waste of Lalitpur Sub metropolitan city.
According to Environment and sanitation section of LSMC, nearly 75 tons of solid waste is
generated daily in LSMC only. The population of Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City is 220,802
(CBS, 2011). The per capita waste generation of LSMC is 0.33 kg/pe/d. With its limited
resources and capabilities, LSMC at present has been able to collect nearly 60 tons/day, while
the remaining 15 tons are somehow managed by private sectors and at individual levels. In
LSMC, a curb-side and on-ground collection system has been widely introduced. In such
collection methods, most of the waste that is brought by the waste generators is piled up at the
collection points and picked up manually and places in collection trucks with shovels. LSMC
have introduced a bell collection system so that residents can throw their garbage into the
collection truck directly by them. On the other hand, door-to-door collection has also been
practiced in many areas mostly by private companies or NGOs such as NEPSEMAC, WEPCO,
and SirjansilBatabaranSamrachan Kendra etc. who charge a collection fee to the participating
waste generators. Almost all waste collected is commingled together, but in some wards such as
ward no. 9, 22 and 13 source-segregation collection is also practiced. Most of the street sweeping
is carried out by the municipalities. There are 165 sweepers employed to sweep the core areas of
the city twice a day and most other areas once a day. This includes 66 sweepers working for
different wards, 26 helpers for loading waste on transport vehicles and remaining for street
cleaning. Power tiller, trucks and other vehicles are in use for the transportation of collected
waste. In some areas the wastes are collected in daily basis whereas in some areas once a week
or twice a week. The collected waste is taken to the Balkhu transfer station where the segregation
of waste is done. The waste collected by the municipality is finally disposed to Sisdole Landfill
site which is 33km away from the main city. Disposal of waste in Sisdole Landfill site has been
started since 2005. The waste collected by other private sectors is disposed to Bagmati river bank
at Balkhu and some are disposed to the container allocated by the municipalities. Patan Hospital
and B&B Hospital have their own incineration to manage their hazardous medical waste. Other
than that, there are no provision for the management of special waste such as medical waste,
industrial effluents, dead animals etc. such hazardous waste were found mixed with the
household waste and being collected together by the municipality and taken to the
2014/15
Balkumaritransfer station and finally to the Sisdole landfill site.

2.1.3. Bhaktapur Municipality
On the basis of information provided by Bhaktapur Municipality Solid waste management
section, the waste generation in Bhaktapur was found to be 0.3 kg/day/p. population of BKM is
81,748 (CBS, 2011). Waste collection system in BKM includes following components : a) Waste
collection from source (door to door collection, road based collection and on ground collection )
b) Street sweeping c) Waste transfer to landfill at Alabu, Bhaktapur. Street sweeping and
collection of waste is carried out in 2 shifts in a day (Morning 6-9 a.m ,4-8 p.m). Bhaktapur
Municipality doesnt have transfer station. In case of Bhaktapur collected waste is disposed to
landfill at Alabu. The sampling were done from the vehicle that transport the collected waste to
the landfill.
2.1.4.
On the basis of information provided by officer of MadhyapurThimi Municipality Solid waste

management section the waste generation was found to be 0.27 kg/day/p. population ofThimi
municipality was 83,086 (CBS, 2011). Solid waste generation rate is 17 Tons/day. When the
research team made visit to Teku Transfer station it was estimated that 2.7 Tons of solid waste is
transported daily to Teku transfer station. Waste collection system in Thimi includes following
components: a) Waste collection from source (road based collection and on ground collection )
b) Street sweeping c) Waste transfer to Teku Transfer station. Street sweeping and collection of
waste is carried out in morning shifts.
2.1.5.
Kirtipur Municipality
On the basis of information provided by Kirtipur Municipality Solid waste management section
the waste generation in Kirtipur Municipality was found to be 0.27 kg/day/p and population of
Kirtipur municipality was 65602 (CBS, 2011). Solid waste generation rate was 17.77 Tons per
day. In the case of Kirtipur municipality the responsibility of solid waste management is given to
5 private organizations or NGOs. These organizations charge a collection fee to the participating
waste generators. These NGOs include SwacchaSrijanaBatabaran Kendra, Clean Nepal,
BatabaranSamrachhanSamaj, Kirtipur Bazar Byabasthapan and I Kirtipur.
In Kirtipur
Municipality, different waste collection methods such a curb-side and on-ground collection
2014/15
system has been widely introduced. In such collection methods, most of the waste that is brought
by the waste generators is piled up at the collection points and picked up manually and places in
collection trucks with shovels. Some of the private organizations have introduced alarm
collection system so that residents can throw their garbage into the collection truck/tractors
directly by them. On the other hand, door-to-door collection has also been practiced in many
areas mostly by some of the private companies or NGOs where the waste collector or rickshaw
goes to every households to collect the waste .Tractors, pick up vans and other vehicles are in
use for the transportation of collected waste. In some areas the wastes are collected in daily basis
whereas in some areas once a week or twice a week. The collected waste is taken to Sundarighat
dumping site for dumping. Kirtipur Municipality doesnt have transfer station and waste
collected from the municipality is disposed at Sundharighat near TU gate. Sampling of waste
was done from the vehicle which was used for transportation of waste at Sundharighat.
2.1.6.
Table: Comparison of Waste in 5 Municipalities of Kathmandu Valley
(based on secondary data)

Name of the Municipality
Total
Municipal
Waste Per
capita
Generation (tons/day)
(kg/pe/d)
Kathmandu Metropolitan City
362
0.3
Lalitpur Sub Metropolitan City
75
0.33
25.5
0.3
MadyapurThimi Municipality
17
0.27
17.77
0.27
2.1.7.
waste
generation
Kalimati Fruit and Vegetable Market
In the case of Kalimati responsibility of solid waste management has been handled to private
person named Mr. JitenShrestha. Curb-side and on-ground collection system has been practiced
in Kalimati fruit and vegetable market in this method most of the waste that is brought by the
fruit and vegetable shop is piled up at the collection points and picked up manually and placed in
collection trucks with shovels. Almost all waste collected is mixed together, but quite rarely
source-separated collection is also quite rarely practiced for special use like community
composting in the Kathmandu Valley. In the case of Kalimati sample was collected from the
2014/15
collection point where the waste are piled up.

2.2.Methodology Adopted
2.2.1.
Literature Review
Various articles, journals newspapers and published articles about solid waste management in
Kathmandu valley were referred. For the business and economic analysis, literature on the
economics of waste and fuel were assessed along with literature that analyzed the impacts of
waste and pollution in Kathmandu Valley.
Following activities were performed for literature review
Through literature review by experts on their relevant field
Through review of existing data available related to Solid Waste generated within 5
municipalities of Kathmandu Valley.
Collection of relevant secondary information and data of these municipalities

(Demography, Waste management plans, Periodic Plans etc of the municipalities)
Thorough desk study to prepare a piloting of biogas usage in transport vehicles
Identification of the potential impacts, feasibility, technologies and economic evaluation

of similar projects abroad.
Organizational setup of SajhaYatayat and similar organizations and the operational plan
of these organizations.
Following Documents and Books were referred during this phase
Tchobanoglous G., Theisen, H., Vigil, (1993) A. Integrated Solid Waste

Management Engineering Principles and Management Issues. McGraw-Hill
international editions. Singapore
Thapa, B., Sapkota, L. and Khanal.,P (2009) Waste Management and Leachate
treatment at Landfill Sites of Nepal, B. Tech. in Environmental Engineering Thesis,
Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Kathmandu University,
Nepal
Project Report, TA-6293 (REG): Managing Cities in Asia, City Development
10
2014/15
Initiative Asia (CDIA)
Manual on Municipal Solid Waste, Centre of Public Health and Environmental

Engineers Organization (CPHEEO), Ministry of Urban Development, India
2.2.2.
Data Collection
The information regarding municipal waste quantity and composition study reports of concerned
municipalities, existing waste management practices, waste flow pattern etc were collected from
concerned municipalities. Environmental officers of concerned Municipalities were consulted for
qualitative information.
2.2.3.
Waste Characterization and Quantification
Quantification of waste: The vehicle was weighed with and without waste. Weight of the waste
was calculated by finding the difference between initial (weight with waste) and the final weight
(weight without waste) of vehicle. Density of waste was obtained by dividing the obtained
weight of waste by volume of the waste.
Log sheet about the transportation vehicle was
observed for 25 days to get the information about theconsistent average no of trips done by
vehicle in a day. Quantification of waste in a day was done by multiplying the average density of
waste, volume of vehicle and average no of trips done by that vehicle in a day. In the case
Kathmandu, Lalitpur and Kalimati above mentioned method was applied but for Thimi,
Bhaktapur and Kirtipur the average secondary density obtained from primary data of Kathmandu
and Lalitpur were used for quantification of waste because in those places weighing bridge was
not available in nearby places.
Waste Characterization: For the characterization of waste, waste reduction method described
in Tchobanoglous (1993), CDIA (2009) and Thapaet. al. (2009) was used, where the waste
collected from a certain area was taken as sample. In this method, the waste was separated into 4
sections, first diagonal wastes were rejected and rest was mixed and again separated into 4
sections. Again the same process was repeated until the waste was approximately 100kg. Then
the composition study was carried out. The waste was separated into various components such as
brown organic waste, green organic waste, paper, plastic, glass, construction material and others.
Each separated components were weighed and divided by total weight and multiplied by 100 to
obtain each component in percentage. For organic fraction, the biodegradable organic fraction
11
2014/15
was calculated considering the green waste with no/less lignin content, this fraction was named
as organic fraction 1 and rest of the organic fraction with high lignin content was categorized as
organic fraction 2. The composition survey was carried out. Five different vehicles were chosen
for sampling in Kharibot, Kalimati and Lalitpur. Similarly samples were collected from 3
vehicles in the case of Bhaktapur and MadhyapurThimi. Samples were collected from 25
vehicles in Teku transfer station. These numbers of vehicles were chosen in a day to take the to
make the sample 2-5% of the total waste generated.
2.2.4.
Laboratory Analysis
Lab analysis of the solid waste was done at NESS laboratory at Babarmahal. Method used for
laboratory analysis is shown in table below:
Table: Method used for chemical analysis of sample in laboratory
S.
Parameters
Method
Briefs
References
Moisture
Oven
This procedure is performed in the sample AOAC 4.1.03, 2005
Drying
that has been oven-dried at 1050C and
N.
1.
ground.
The
method
quantitatively
determines the dry matter content based on

the gravimetric loss of free water associated
with heating
2.
Volatile Matter
Gravimetry This method covers the determination of ash Standard Methods (for
from soil, tissue and waste samples, which the
examination
of
are prepared & dried at 550 C. Ash is water and wastewater).

determined by use of a muffle furnace set at 15th
550 C 50 C for 3 hours.
Edition,
1980
Pg.97 (209G). Volatile

and Fixed Matter in
Nonfilterable Residue
and
in
Solid
and
Semisolid Samples.
12
2014/15

3.
Total Nitrogen
Kjeldahl
Total N includes all forms of inorganic N, FAO Fertilizer & Plant
Digestion
such as NH4, NO3 and NH2 (urea), and the Nutrition Bulletin No.
organic N compounds such as proteins, 19,
Food
&
amino acids and other derivatives. While Agriculture

organic N materials can be converted into Organization of the
simple
inorganic
ammoniacal
salt
by United Nations, Rome
digestion with sulphuric acid, for reducing 2008.

nitrates into ammoniacal form, the modified
Kjeldahl method is adopted with the use of
sodium thiosulfate. At the end of digestion,
all organic and inorganic salts are converted
into ammonium form, which is distilled and
estimated by using standard acid.
1 Organic Matter Modified
/
Organic Walkley&
Black
Carbon
The organic matter / carbon in the sample is USDA
Agricultural
determined by wet oxidation method. The Handbook 60.

moisture
free
sample
is
treated
with Government
potassium dichromate in acidic condition is Office,
U.S.
Printing
Washington,
heated to 150 C for 30 minutes. The amount D.C

of organic carbon in the sample can be
determined by measuring the amount of
unreacted dichromate by titrating with
standard ferrous ammonium sulfate.
2 C:N Ratio
Calculation The ratio was calculated by dividing the

organic carbon to total nitrogen percentages.
2.2.5.
Data Compilation and Analysis
Microsoft excel was used for compilation of data obtained in the field. Vehicle log sheet was
observed for 25 days to know the average no of trips done by each vehicle in transfer station.
However all the vehicles were operational for 5 days only in case of KMC. On other days, the
number of trips were made by lesser vehicles. Hence, relatively less waste were collected due to
failure of vehicles. Later this information was used for quantification of solid waste.
13

2.2.6.
2014/15
Calculation of Biogas Potential
1) Total waste that reaches to landfill or transfer station was calculated.

2) Percentage of organic waste obtained from composition analysis was used for calculation of
organic fraction of solid waste.
3) Percentage of Total Solids was calculated from (100-moisture content)
4) Percentage of Volatile solid in solid waste was determined from laboratory test at NESS
laboratory Babarmahal
5) Unitary method was applied to calculate the total Volatile solid in Total solid of waste.
6) Similarly by using 0.35Biogas yield (cu.m/kg VS) total biogas potential (cu.m/day) was
calculated.
Calculation method
1. Total waste quantity in a day: W (tons)
2. Organic waste = O% of organic fraction of waste* 1000 (kg) {1000kg =1 ton}
3. Moisture content : M %
M(%) = ((W1 - W2)/W1)100
W1 : Weight before ashed (Crucible+dried sample) - crucible
W2 : Weight after ashed (Crucible+dried sample) - crucible
4. Total solid: TS= Organic waste (100- M)% (kg)

5. Percentage of Volatile Solids: Vs%
6. Volatile Solid VS= Vs% TS (kg)
7. Typical bio-gas yield: B (m3)=
0.35 ( m3 / kg. of VS) (Adopted from Biogas
Calculation Tool v3.0 - AEPC (VOG 20140603).xlsm A biogas calculation tool from
AEPC)
8. Bio-gas yield in day = VS B (m3)
14

2.2.7.
2014/15
Finance and Institutional
For this part a full business case analysis was carried out that adopted a 15-year lifecycle for the
project technology. Secondary economic and environmental benefits of the project were assessed
as well accessing a range of literature and case studies for the analysis. Sajhas institutional study
involved interviews and discussions with key stakeholders in Sajha, both staff and consultants
who are developing Sajhas strategy. This is discussed in more detail in the sections themselves.
15
2014/15
CHAPTER 3 :
Results and Discussion
3.1.Quantification of Waste
When the study team made a visit to the landfill, dumping sites and transfer station of 5
municipalities including Kalimati Fruit and Vegetable market, it was found that 331 tons of solid
waste is dumped at landfill sites in a day. Per day waste generation of solid waste in those places
are shown in table 1 below. These obtained values of per day waste collected in dumping sites
and transfer stations are lower than the average value of waste generation as provided by the
municipality offices. Reasons behind lower values of solid waste are some of the generated
waste are not collected, some are collected by scavengers for reuse and recycle, some fraction of
organic waste are collected for composting. In the case of Kalimati fruit and vegetable market
fruit and vegetable waste in those places are used for animal fodder.
Table 1:Quantification of waste
Location
Quantity
of
waste
collected
in
Landfill/dumping
sites/Transfer stations (Tons/ day)

Kathmandu Metropolitan city
254.15
23.4857
6.62
2.695
Lalitpur Sub Metropolitan city
40.8415
Kalimati fruit and vegetable market
5.5
Total
330.8372
3.2.Composition of waste
Composition of solid was determined by waste reduction method as described in section 2.2.3
above. About 60%of total waste generated from five municipalities was organic waste but in the
case of Kalimati fruit and vegetable market around 94% of total waste was organic waste
because major waste from Kalimati are remains of fruit and vegetables. Decreasing trend of
organic waste gives us indicates the increase in living standard of people living in valley. Higher
percentage of organic waste will be beneficial for biogas production. Detail about the
16
2014/15
composition of waste is shown in table in Annex I.

3.3.Chemical parameters
3.3.1 Volatile Solids (VS):
Volatile solids, also called organic solids, are the fraction of total solids that can burn
(volatilized) in the muffle oven at 520o C. Only the volatile solids can be broken down by
anaerobic digestion. KMC has highest value of Volatile solid and Kirtipur has lowest value.
Average value of volatile solids for BKT, LSMC, KRM, MTM, KTM and Kalimati are 44.41%,
39.63%, 43.88% 33.24%, 58.47% and 42.671% respectively.
3.3.2 Moisture:
During course of study the sample collected from landfill has the moisture content as shown in
table above. Moisture content of Lalitpur and Kalimati were 85% and 82% respectively. Waste
from Kalimati has higher value of moisture content because of higher amount of remains of fruit
and vegetables in the waste. Similarly waste from Lalitpur sub metropolitan city has highest
value of moisture, reason behind this value may be sampling of waste just a day after rainfall or
sampled solid waste was in contact with water before it was sampled. High water contents are
likely to affect the process performance by dissolving readily degradable organic matter. It has
been reported that the highest methane production rates occur at 6080% of humidity
(Bouallagui et al., 2003). Moisture content of Bhaktapur and Kathmandu were 69.03% and
72.83% respectively these values are within the limit of moisture required for better production
of biogas. High water contents are likely to affect the process performance by dissolving readily
degradable organic matter. Average value of Moisture for BKT, LSMC, KTM and Kalimati are
69.03%, 85%, 82%, 72.82%and 82% respectively.
3.3.3 C:N ratio:

Values of C:N ratios of sampled solid waste are shown in table above. Values of C:N ratio of
Bhaktapur, Kalimati and Kathmandu were 19.03, 19.62 and 18.82 respectively these values are
near to 20 which is best for anaerobic digestion of organic waste. Similarly C:N ratio values for
Lalitpur, Kirtipur and Thimi were 17.99, 16.67 and 16.80 respectively. These values are below
the optimum values required for best anaerobic digestion , this means solid waste has lower
17
2014/15
carbon content so brown waste like dry wood, leaf straw might be added after shredding.
Microbial decomposers obtain many nutrients from the composting materials but carbon (C) and
nitrogen (N) are the nutrients that affect the process the most. Microorganisms primarily use
carbon compounds as an energy source and ingest nitrogen for protein. If ratio is high, then low
nitrogen will slow decomposition and if C:N ratio is low then excess nitrogen is lost through gas
as ammonia and also produce odour problem. The C/N ratio of 2030 may provide sufficient
nitrogen for the process,Bouallagui et al. (2003) suggested that a C/N ratio between 22 and 25
seemed to be best for anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable waste.
3.4.Estimation of biogas potential
Potential of biogas was obtained from the method as described above in section 2.2.6. Detail
about potential of biogas from solid waste of 5 municipalities of Kathmandu valley including
Kalimati fruit and vegetable market is shown in table below:
Table 2: Estimation of Biogas potential
Name
of Amount of %
Location
waste
of
that organic
reaches
waste
Amount of Total %of
Amount of Biogas
Estimated
organic
Solid
Volatile
Volatile
biogas
waste
in%
solids
solid
(TONS/day)
transfer
yield
in (cu.m/kg (cu.m/day)
Organic
station/
VS)
waste (kg)
landfill
(TONS/day)
Lalitpur
40.84
58.74
23.99
15
44.41
1598.094
0.350
559.333
Bhaktapur
23.48
56.7
13.31
31
39.61
1634.348
0.350
572.022
Kalimati
5.5
94.17
5.18
18
50
466.200
0.350
163.170
Thimi
2.7
62.23
1.68
29
42.67
207.888
0.350
72.761
Kirtipur
6.62
60.36
3.99
32
33.24
424.41
0.350
148.760
Kathmandu
254.15
56.828
144.428
27
58.47
22800.704
0.350
5723.861
Total
333.29
192.578
27131.6426
9496.07
18
2014/15
Suitable Technology for Piloting of Biogas usage in Transport Vehicles

Municipal Solid Waste to Bio-CNG and Organic Fertilizer project can be separated in to three
main stages:
Stage 1: Sort the wastes and separate the organic fraction
First step is to sort the wastes and separate organic fraction. Separation process maybe fully
automatic or semi-automatic in nature. Considering the power usage in the sorting system we
suggest using semi-automatic method for this project involving some conveyors, vibrating
screen/table, crasher as well as human inspection and separation.
Land space requirement for waste material landing and sorting system is estimated about approx.
4000sqm to 5000sqm. We supposed that government would help this project by providing the
required amount of land required for sorting of waste in this project.
19
2014/15
Stage 2: Use the organic fraction and produce Biogas

From sorting process, the organic waste will be fed into anaerobic fermentation system. From
storage, mixing, heating, then send the waste into fermentation tank. After the anaerobic
fermentation process, the waste will produce biogas and biogas residue, biogas will be used as
the energy and fed into biogas purifying system, then the clean gas will be compressed and
produce CNG. For biogas residue, it will be treated by dewater process, then use the dewatered
residue to make compost fertilizer.
In this project, the main treatment will be dry type anaerobic fermentation process to produce
biogas, while chemical absorption method will be followed for cleaning and purification of the
biogas.
According to full project design target and related auxiliary technological in the treatment, the
total anaerobic system includes:
1Anaerobic Fermentation system
2Biogas cleaning system
3Biogas purifying system
4Gas compressing system
20
2014/15

Organic waste
Receiving tank
Fermentation tank
feeder
Biogas
Biogas storage tank
Steam
Fermentation tank
Fermentation tank
Discharger
Booster fan
Biogas residue
water separator
Biogas cleaning
system
Biogas slurry
Biogas purifying
system
Biogas slurry pool
Dehydration
biogas
Gas compressing
system
CNG storage
tank
Biogas slurry
treatment system
Biogas residue
utilization system
Figure 1 System flow chart for the organic garbage anaerobic fermentation
21
2014/15
To include the fluctuating value of the organic waste and to workout with readily available
organic waste the organic the organic waste quantity was taken as 170t/ day instead if
192.578t/day as suggested in Table:2.
The final biogas yield of 5000m3/day is shown instead of 9496.07m3/day because the system is
designed in such a way that it can process 170t/day with a yield of 5000 m3/day of biogas after
certain purifications.
Organic waste
Qty. 170t/d
Mixing and heating
Steam
Qty: 12 t/d
Fermentation material
Qty: 182 t/d
Anaerobic
Fermentation
Flocculating
agent solution
Qty: 16 t/d
Biogas
Qty: 12000m3/d
15 t/d
Waste water
Qty: 128 t/d
Biogas residue
Qty: 55 t/d
Biogas boiler
Qty: 2000m3/d
Biogas purifying
Qty: 10000m3/d
Biogas residue
Stabilization system
Gas
Organic fertilizer
Qty:
5000m3/d
30t/d
Figure 2 Process
material
quantity and flow Qty:
diagram
22
2014/15
23
2014/15
Stage 3: Process Bio-slurry / residue to make organic fertilizer

The system will produce about 55 tons bio residue per day. Through the anaerobic process this
residue has already been turned into organic fertilizer that can be used directly in the field. To
make it more refined and commercially marketable it requires some processing.
Following is the process step by step:
Step 1: Heaping- Dump slurry into the pit along with other raw materials at prescribed
ratio.
Step 2: Resting-Keep the materials at rest for seven 7 (seven) days for composting.
Step 3: Mixing-Run paddle mixer to mix all raw materials properly.
Step 4: Resting-Keep the materials at rest for 3 (three) days for composting and settling.
Step 5: Checking- Check for vital measures of the batch. Check for right temperature,
moisture, color and texture.
Step 6A: Resting-If vital signs are not as desired then add extra Trichoderma and keep it
at rest for another 7 (seven) days.
Step 6B: Drying-If vital signs are as desired but too moist then pass the batch through
dryer.
Step 7: Grading- The batch is put into the net and graded. Finer grains are separated and
packed for selling.
Step 8: Crashing- Oversized granules are crashed in the crashing machine.
Step 9: Packing- Crashed grains are then packed for selling.
24
2014/15
Estimated Budget
Following is the budget for the municipal solid waste to bio CNG and bio fertilizer project:
Sl.
1
2
3
Description
Waste Material Sorting System
Anaerobic Dry Fermentation System
Organic Fertilizer Processing System
Total Amount (USD)
Amount (USD)
2,857,810.00
10,758,461.00
1,923,076.00
15,539,347.00
This budget INCLUDE:

o
o
o
o
Cost of Machineries
Design expenses
Installation & Commissioning expenses
Civil costs directly related to installation
This budget DOES NOT INCLUDE:

o Land preparation/development
o Shed or housing for machineries
o Administrative building
o Human Laborers building
o Freight cost to Nepal
o Duty and Taxes
o Local costs and handling expenses
The machinery provided includes all that is necessary to process organic waste to usable biogas
including the purifying system, digester, and fueling station for buses/cylinders. The total
potential number of buses that can run from the produced, pure biogas, will be 88 based on the
fuel consumption requirements of buses analyzed in the later section on Sajhas institutional
capacity. The budget not included above has been added in the business case below with the
details provided in the financial analysis in the annexes.
3.5.Biogas cleaning and upgrading
Biogas consists mainly of methane and carbon dioxide and it can be utilized as a renewable
energy source in combined heat and power plants, as a vehicle fuel, or as a substitute for natural
gas. The methane in the biogas can also be utilized in industrial processes and as a raw material
in the industry. Depending on the end use, different biogas treatment steps are necessary. Several
techniques for biogas upgrading existtoday and they are continually being improved. In parallel,
new techniques are under development.
25
2014/15
Typical Composition of biogas

Methane (vol-%)
Carbon dioxide (vol-%)
Nitrogen (vol-%)
Hydrogen Sulphide (ppm)
Ammonia (ppm)
Lower heating value (kWh/nm3)
6070
30 40
~0.2
04000
~100
6.5
Apart from methane and carbon dioxide, biogas can also contain water, hydrogen sulphide,
nitrogen, oxygen, ammonia, siloxanes and particles. The concentrations of these impurities are
dependent on the composition of the substrate from which the gas was produced.
In those upgrading technologies where carbon dioxide is separated from the biogas, some of the
other unwanted compounds are also separated. However, to prevent corrosion and mechanical
wear of the upgrading equipment itself, it can be advantageous to clean the gas before the
upgrading.For use biogas as vehicle fuel key concern is to remove moisture in biogas, hydrogen
sulphide and carbon dioxide.
Moisture Removal
Biogas leaves the digester saturated by water at process temperature, which is higher than
ambient temperature. Thus condensation occurs immediately in the gas pipe. Condensation of
water from saturated or unsaturated gases appears on cold surfaces, when the temperature is
below the condensation point of the moisture in the gas. The maximum partial pressure of water
vapor in gases and gas mixtures, which is equal to the condensation point, depends on the
temperature and the overall pressure.
A commonly used method to remove condensate from the biogas is the installation of siphons or
condensate wells on the lowest point of the gas pipe.
In Nepal condition as the ambient temperature is lower than the temperature in the digester, a
natural condensation will occur and the water will accumulate inside the pipeline. Condensate
trap at several points in the pipeline will be used to drain out the water.
Biogas Cleaning: H2S Removal
There are different techniques for Hydrogen Sulphide removal, such as, oxygen/air dosing,
FeCl3 dosing, FeSO4 dosing, Fe2O3 pellets, Membrane Separation, Activated Carbon, Sodium
Hydroxide Scrubbing etc. Among these techniques adsorption using iron oxide pellets will be
used in this project. It is relatively easy and cheap and widely used.
26
2014/15
Normally two circular reactor vessels filled with Fe2O3 pellets are used to provide a continuous
operation with simultaneous adsorption in the vessels. Removal efficiencies of more than 99%
can be reached for moderate H2S concentrations in the raw gas. Used adsorption material has to
be replaced by fresh material periodically.
This technology is simple, cheap and easy to operate and maintain
The chemical reaction takes place as follows:
3H2S + Fe2O3 . 3H2O Fe2S3 + 6H2O
Biogas Upgrading: CO2 Removal
There are many different techniques for Carbon Dioxide removal, such as, Membrane
Separation, High Pressure Gas Separation, Low Pressure Gas Separation, Pressure Swing
Adsorption (PSA), Chemical Reaction, Water Scrubbing, Polyethylene Glycol Scrubbing
(Chemical Process), Cryogenic Removal etc.
Among these techniques Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) will be used in this project as this is a
widely used, well proven technology and low maintenance involvement.
Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA): Pressure Swing Adsorption, or PSA, is a method for the
separation of carbon dioxide from methane by adsorption/desorption of carbon dioxide on
molecular sieves (zeolites from carbon, activated carbon) at different pressure levels. Operating
pressures between 6-10 bar for the adsorption step are usually applied.
Molecular sieves have excellent properties to separate a number of different gaseous compounds
in biogas. The difference in the attraction force of various molecules to the surface of the fixed
material is utilized to separate the biogas components. Molecules like carbon dioxide, oxygen,
nitrogen, water vapor and hydrogen sulphide can be adsorbed by these materials. Only hydrogen
sulphide has to be removed from the raw gas, since it is irreversibly bound to the adsorption
material. The other molecules mentioned are loosely (reversibly) adsorbed in the cavities of the
carbon sieve. To avoid a saturation of the molecular sieve with water, the raw biogas has to be
dried before it enters the upgrading process.
PSA upgrading systems usually consist of four adsorber vessels. The process operates
continuously by linking these vessels in an alternating cycle. The process in each bed
successively passes the following stages: adsorption, depressurization, desorption and
pressurization.
27
2014/15
Figure: Schematic flow diagram of a PSA process using a 4-bed adsorber

During the adsorption phase, pressurized biogas enters from the bottom into the adsorber vessel
and flows through the bed of adsorption material, which will be loaded mainly with carbon
dioxide, but also small amounts of methane. The gas leaving the top of the vessel contains more
than 97% methane. Before the material is completely saturated, the process is switched to
another adsorption vessel which has been regenerated and pressurized. The saturated material
from the first bed is regenerated by a stepwise depressurization, first through a pressure balance
with an already regenerated adsorber vessel, then through depressurization to atmospheric
pressure and further to near vacuum conditions by a vacuum pump.
The first step of balancing the pressure is in order to reduce the energy consumption for gas
compression. The gas leaving the vessel during the second depressurization step down to
atmospheric pressure still contains methane and is therefore recycled into the feed stream.
During the last step of the regeneration process, mainly carbon dioxide is evacuated by a vacuum
pump and released to the atmosphere.
3.6.Business Case of the Biogas and Fertilizer Production:

3.7.1. Introduction:
This section details the business viability of the organic waste to CNG for vehicles and organic
fertilizer production. It takes a multi-scenario business analysis to account for various
possibilities including slower market adoption of fertilizers and fuel, to normal prices, and
optimistic (best case) scenarios where fertilizers and fuel are sold at the higher market prices
28
2014/15
either because they are premium products or a shift in the government subsidies that are
currently going to dirty fuels and chemical fertilizers. The section following this looks at the
secondary economic benefits and externalities of this project to justify this scenario.
3.7.2. Capital Requirement:
This project will require an investment of more than 15 million USD (1,857,458,462.68 NPR) to
set up the plant. In addition to this, in the proposed business model, the company actually owns
the fuel conversion kits for the buses so that it is responsible for maintenance and the aversion to
change from the cost of conversion (100,000 NPR per bus) is reduced. Given that the main target
client, SajhaYatayat, will only have 41 buses and use approximately 1700 liters of fuel, the
project will also target other public transit companies on similar routes. The total number of
buses that this project will supply and will require conversion kits will be approximately 88
buses.
For the purpose of this study, land costs are excluded. The major reason for this is that the
Government already has massive problems with landfill space and having to find new landfill
space. Given that this project will reduce the land requirement and not require more space over
time, the assumption taken into account is that the Government will provide the land since that
would have been a cost incurred in the normal scenario. In fact, this project requires no future
land and a smaller footprint, so this will actually reduce the Government expenditure on land
making this a safe assumption.
3.7.3. Operating Cost:
The project will require ongoing operation and maintenance. Electricity costs will be minimal as
the plant will be primarily self-sustaining, however manpower and maintenance costs exist. The
maintenance cost, according to the study partner SeedBanglas technical partner, the
manufacturing company, Shanghai ShenjiaSunwa Co Ltd is 200,000 USD per year. Additionally,
50 staff (skilled/unskilled) are required for waste sorting and CNG production while another 15
are needed for the fertilizer unit.
Transport of waste to the facility and the cost of waste were not considered for this analysis. The
major reason for this is that comparing these to other options (landfill, etc) is revenue-neutral as
they are required for any waste management technique. Since the government currently incurs
costs for this, the assumption is that they will remain the government responsibility and costs or
be offset by waste collection fees.
29
2014/15

3.7.4. Other Assumptions:
S.N.
Assumptions
Cost of Capital is assumed to be 10%
Price of Fertilisers and Gas is assumed to increase by 5% every year
All operating cost is assumed to increase by 5% each year
Freight cost to Nepal is assumed to be Rs. 10 million
Depreciation is calculated as per Income Tax Act 2058 i.e. 15% on WDV basis on plant and
Machinery
1
2
3
4
5
6 Life of plant is assumed to be 15 years. At the end of 15th year, salvage value of plant is
assumed to be Nil which results in tax saving at the end of 15th year
7 Consumption of gas by bus is assumed to be 41 ltrs per day, same as consumption of
diesel.
8 Conversion cost of each bus is assumed to be Rs. 100,000 each
3.7.5. Business Case:

To build a business case for the biogas plant, it is first necessary to understand competing
products. Diesel, for example, currently is 103 rupees per liter. Chemical fertilizers vary both in
quality, price and availability, while compost does not yet have a fixed market rate (30-40 rupees
is the average range now). Below is a table outlining fertilizer sales and prices in Nepal the past
year.
Sales of fertilizers and current price of various fertilizers in Nepal: 1
Potash
Compost
108552.2
diammonium
phosphate (DAP)
65722.4
2688.3
3177.4
11502.8
2606.4
142.2
279.0
18,000.00
18.00
45,000.00
45.00
31,000.00
31.00
NA
30-40 (approx)
2012/13
Urea
Sales
in
Nepal(metric ton)
Sales in KTM(Metric
ton)
Price(Rs/Mt)
Price(Rs/kg)
Based on these prices we have built our business model. To understand varying risks we have
analyzed the feasibility of the Biogas Plant in 5 different scenarios, presented below:
11.1
m3 CNG is equivalent to 1 liter diesel performance wise. Taking into account engine efficiency in Kathmandu terrain, 80
percent, the production 5000 m3 of pure CNG is equivalent to 3640 liters of diesel per day.
STATISTICAL INFORMATION ON NEPALESE AGRICULTURE (2012/2013)(2069/070) published by Government of Nepal Ministry of

Agricultural Development, Agri-Business Promotion and Statistics Division
30
2014/15
3.7.Scenario #1 Base Scenario (Normal Prices):

For this scenario we set the prices of fuel (diesel equivalent) at prices similar to the existing
market rates with a 5 percent price increase per year. The below rates are exclusive of VAT to
represent what the company receives.
Fuel price Rs. 75/liter

Fertilizer (compost) Rs 30/kg
With this consideration, the net present value of the whole project for 15 years is positive, NPR
1,342,467,53. Over the course of the 15 years both the investment and the interest (10%) will be
recovered. The full financial details are in the annex 7.
3.8.Scenario #2 Full Benefits Scenario
Given the external and secondary benefits of the switch to alternative fuel, organic fertilizer and
waste management system that are detailed in the next section, we also adopted scenarios with
higher prices. For this the prices were increased by 15 percent (fuel) and 10 percent (fertilizer) in
the financial model, the increase potentially can be paid for by a shift in subsidies from diesel
and chemical fertilizers or by allowing the transport companies who adopt these fuels to charge a
slightly higher rate.

With this consideration, the net present value of the whole project for 15 years is highly positive,
NPR
1,557,832,777and the project recovers both the investment and interest in 15 years.
3.9.Scenario #3 Clean Fuel at a Premium - Safaa Tempo Scenario:
Given the external and secondary benefits of the switch to alternative fuel and also the historical
success of charging a slight premium for clean transport during the introduction of the Safa
Tempo, we also adopted scenarios with higher prices for fuel only, but reduced for fertilizer. For
this the prices were increased by 15 percent for fuel, while reduced fertilizer by 33 percent in the
financial model. The increase potentially can be paid for by a shift in subsidies from diesel or by
allowing the transport companies who adopt these fuels to charge a slightly higher rate.

With this consideration, the net present value of the whole project for 15 years is very positive,
NPR 747,868,520and the project still pays back both the interest and investment over 15 years.
3.10. Scenario #4 Aggressive Pricing Scenario:
While the Government has goals for organic fertilizer production and many farmers are making
the shift to organic fertilizer, demand could be a little slow especially for quantities like 30
31
2014/15
metric tons per day. Additionally, the price of fuel could continue to drop based on global trends.
We took these into account to account for the need to drop the prices because of peoples
aversion to change and the business having to use aggressive low prices to achieve full adoption.
For this we set the prices of fuel (17%) and fertilizer (50%) lower than the current market rate:

Fertilizer (compost) Rs 14.5/kg
With this consideration, the net present value of the cash flow of the whole project for 15 years is
positive, NPR 44,428,343.Over the course of the 15 years both the investment and the interest
(10%) will be recovered.
3.11. Risks:
With any project there are still risks. With these scenarios we have accounted for many risks,
however there are will always be risks:
Local opposition no matter the cleanliness of this site, there is always a chance for local
agitation
Availability of waste While there is a lot of unmanaged waste in Kathmandu, there are
many organizations vying to manage the waste. Additionally on-site compost, biogas and
other organic waste management facilities are growing at all levels. These could create
issues with supply of waste, which would reduce gas/fertilizer generation and therefore
revenue.
Slow uptake Organic fertilizer is still not a fully developed market and natural gas
vehicles are something new in Nepal. The only current similar vehicles are LPG
tempos, which are not exactly something desirable.
Machinery Breakdown We have assumed 330 days of operation of buses, which
somewhat accounts for the breakdown in machinery. Also our business model has the
optimum number of experienced staff and has a significant ($200,000/year) maintenance
budget. Still, risks remain with any high-tech machinery.
3.12. Summary:
All of the scenarios show a positive NPV for this project. It is not something that is unproven
either, as many other countries have implemented similar systems and it is increasing globally.
However, with any first moving project there are risks to the project and these can potentially be
covered by subsidies at least to get the project off the ground. The next section outlines the
secondary benefits and externalities of the project justifying the use of government assistance to
stimulate a project to set an example in Nepal.
32

3.13.
2014/15
External Benefits and Costs of Waste-to-CNG for Transport
3.14.1.
Negative Secondary Impacts and Externalities of Diesel Fuel:
-Pollution Kathmandu is one of the most polluted cities in the world, illustrated by its recent
ranking at #2 on Yale Universitys Environmental Performance Index (EPI). PM 2.5, which is
the most harmful particulate matter (PM) as pollution, is at levels that are significantly higher
than WHO standards and rivals areas like Delhi and Beijing, who are notorious for their
pollution. 2 In addition to this being a health hazard, it is also a significant source of black carbon,
which has both additional negative climate impacts and also direct impacts on glaciers as it
increases the melting rate. Black carbon is estimated to contribute up to 30 percent of glacial
melt. 3 Pollution from diesel is especially bad. 4
Particulate pollution in Kathmandu is increasingly becoming a major health issue also. The
standards are exceeded almost daily with sometimes levels approaching 20 times the WHO
standards. 5 Chronic respiratory infections, heart disease and other health impacts are increasingly
prevalent and have significant economic costs as well, in 2007 this was estimated at 21 million
USD, today this is likely much higher. 6
-Greenhouse Gases - Compared to diesel directly, CNG has 6-11 percent fewer emissions and
minimal black carbon pollution.7 This is in comparison to clean, quality diesel burned in good
engines, which is not the current case. The current equivalent of diesel emissions will be nearly
12 tonnes per day 8 and while there will be around 10.5 tonnes from the biogas, it is renewable
because it is stored carbon, i.e. that which was already in the decaying matter. In essence the
actual use of biomethane as a fuel is carbon neutral on a comparison basis. 9 If a full waste-to-
2Lodge, Andrew 2014, Has Air Pollution Made Kathmandu Unlivable? The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/mar/21/air-
pollution-kathmandu-nepal-liveable-smog-paris accessed on 21 December 2014

3ICIMOD, Black Carbon in the Hindu-Kush Himalayas http://geoportal.icimod.org/mgp/MENRISFactSheets/Sheets/14icimodblack_carbon_in_the_hindu_kush-himalayan_region.pdf
4 Zimmer, Carl, 2013 Black Carbon and Global Warming: Its Worse than We Thought Yale 360, January 17th,
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/carl_zimmer_black_carbon_and_global_warming_worse_than_thought/2611/, accessed on 20 November 2014
5Clean Energy Nepal, 2014 Air Quality Status and Management in Kathmandu Valley: Make the City Air Breathable
http://www.cen.org.np/uploaded/AQ%20Status%20and%20Managment%20in%20KV_Maya%20Factsheet%205.pdf
accessed
on
20
December 2014
6The World Bank Group, 2014 Diesel Power Generation: Inventories and Black Carbon Emissions in Kathmandu Valley Nepal,
http://www.cen.org.np/uploaded/1948_[final]%20Report_DG%20Set%20Study_Nepal.pdf accessed on 22 December 2014.
7US
Department
of
Energy,
Alternative
Fuels
Data
Center,
Natural
Gas
Vehicle
Emissions
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/natural_gas_emissions.html, accessed on 22 December 2014
8 Calculation 2640 grams CO2/liter of diesel multiplied by 3640 liters of diesel equivalent per day. (http://www.ecoscore.be/en/how-calculateco2-emission-level-fuel-consumption) = 9.6 tonnes of CO2 savings per day. If diesel emissions are 9.6 tonnes then the corresponding natural
gas emissions would be 89 percent of this or 8.5 tonnes (before taking into account the renewable nature of the fuel)
9US Department of Energy
33
2014/15
wheels lifecycle analysis is done the total emissions of diesel is 17 tonnes per day compared to
3.4 tonnes for the biomethane. 10
The reduction in greenhouse gases is also significant because diesel, especially poor quality fuel,
is considered a more potent source of black carbon. The greenhouse gas equivalent of the black
carbon from diesel multiplies its global warming impact beyond the standard CO2 emissions. 11
-Trade Deficit 12 Nepal Oil Corporation currently and historically has lost massive amounts of
money. Petroleum products are one of Nepals biggest outflows of foreign currency and one of
the primary drivers between Nepals growing trade deficit. 13 Below shows the increase in the
imports of petroleum and diesel over the previous decade:
Figure: Petroleum and Diesel Imports over the Previous 10 Years (In KL): 14
800000
700000
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
3.14.2.
Petrol
Diesel
Positive Secondary Impacts and Externalities of Biogas:
-Reduced Methane Emissions Methane is one of the more potent greenhouse gases, 21 times
more than carbon dioxide. 15 The anaerobic decomposition of organic waste in landfills results in
methane emission. Instead by capturing this methane and turning it into CO2 will reduce
10Calculation done using Argonne National Laboratorys Greenhouse Regulated Emissions and Energy Use in Transport (GREET) Carbon and
Petroleum Footprint Calculator - https://greet.es.anl.gov/carbon_footprint_calculator - Note: this is calibrated for the US and landfill gas
recovery for fuel and fuel transport and standards in the US so results will slightly vary (differences likely to be more stark actually).
11Zimmer 2013
12It should be noted that Nepal has a positive balance of payments but this is almost completely due to remittances, if those are removed
Nepals trade deficit is significant, driven in a large part by petroleum products. Fertilizers are also primarily imported.
13Adhikari, Debesh, 2013, Economy: Huge Deficit The New Spotlight Magazine, Volume 7, Number 11.
http://www.spotlightnepal.com/News/Article/ECONOMY-Huge-Deficit, accessed on 22December 2014.
14Nepal Oil Corporation, 2014 Import and Sales http://www.nepaloil.com.np/Import-and-Sales/22/# accessed 21 December 2014
15http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html
34
2014/15
greenhouse gas emissions. The total methane emissions from solid waste in Nepal are equal to
more than 520 gigagrams (52,000 tons) of CO2 equivalent. 16
While it is challenging to calculate the exact emissions from this amount of biogas because
different landfill sites and disposal methods result it different amounts of methane, it is quite a
significant amount. For example the much-maligned Sisdole landfill site produces an estimated
779 tonnes of methane each year, equivalent to 16,360 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. 17 This alone is
more than 4 times the emission reduction from diesel and not representative of all of the organic
waste in Kathmandu. Another reference point would be that the Biocomp-Nepal project, if at full
scale (50 MT/day), which is less than 1/3rd of the solid waste of Kathmandu, will only get credit
for 7,000+ tonnes of CO2 displacement per year at its peak. 18 A simple calculation from these, if
this project takes more than 3 times the waste that Biocomp will be dealing with in total, then
using the same methodology, it will offset more than 21,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent.
Cleaner landfills and more recycling Anaerobic decomposition and poor landfill management
create a significant nuisance to locals. A simple visit to the landfill site will show this. However
landfill space in Nepal, along with operation and opposition from locals is a constant problem.
The current landfill spaces are temporary and the development of a permanent landfill has met
local opposition and been consistently delayed creating a problem for the future.Locals
frequently oppose and shut down the landfill that has created problems in their community
including the emission of Hydrogen Sulphide, which can have long-term health impacts. 19
Alternatively, collecting, sorting and capturing the methane for fuel and byproducts for fertilize
both reduces these problems while creating economic value.
-Organic Fertilizer Production Nepal has become increasingly reliant on chemical fertilizers,
with many cases of misapplication and also shortages. In 2011, for example, Nepal used 99,000
metric tonnes of urea fertilizer, all of which was imported. 20 The Nepal Government, to promote
healthy farming and local fertilizer production has a goal of producing 50,000 tons of fertilizer
per day and some believe that producing organic fertilizer in Nepal can make the country selfsufficient. 21 This project would contribute to that goal, help stimulate organic farming and
reduce the trade deficit as well.
Figure: Impact Flow Analysis of the Current Scenario:
16ADB 2008, Preparing the Secondary Towns Integrated Urban Environment Improvement Project, Volume 7: Major Environmental Issues,
http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-document/63397/36188-01-nep-tacr-07.pdf
17Devkota, Rohini P, Geoff Cockfield, Tek Narayan Maserini, Rabi Bhattarai, and BhupendraDevkota, 2012. Assessment of Gas Emission from
the Operation of a Semi-Aerobic Landfill Site by Solid Waste of Kathmandu Valley, Environmental Research Journal, 6 (3) 182-186
https://eprints.usq.edu.au/23749/1/Devkota_etal_ERJ_v6n3_PV.pdf
18My Climate, Organic Waste Composting in Nepal http://www.myclimate.org/carbon-offset-projects/projekt/organic-waste-composting-innepal-314/ (Note: Report with emission calculations is available on the bottom right corner) accessed on 25 December 2014.
19Devkotaet, al.
20FAO Stat, accessed from FactFish - http://www.factfish.com/statistic-country/nepal/urea,%20consumption - accessed on 23 December 2014.
21Hamal,
Chandani
2014
Chitwant
to
Start
Producing
Organic
Fertilizer
RepublicaOnlinehttp://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=69981accessed on 22 December 2014.
My
35
2014/15
Figure:
Impact
Cycle
Analysis
of
the
Waste-To-Energy
Plant:
36

3.14.3.
2014/15
Summary:
The capture and reuse of the methane from waste combined with the conversion of waste to
organic fertilizer has significant secondary benefits to society. Reduced carbon emissions of
almost 12 tonnes CO2 equivalent from diesel burning and methane emissions of 60 tonnes CO2
equivalent per day, are just one benefit. Additional benefits of reduced particulate emissions and
health impacts, reduced demand and import of chemical fertilizers, and the reduced trade deficit
over time add value.
The Nepal Government already subsidizes and regulated diesel and chemical fertilizer prices.
These subsidies are designed to increase growth by providing fuel for economic activity and
fertilizer for agriculture (food security). However, re-directing them into non-polluting, Nepalbased renewable fuel and organic fertilizer that also largely eliminates the landfill requirement
and local problems associated with it would not change this, in fact they would increase the
value of the subsidy.
Given the benefits of this project, including massive secondary benefits and positive externalities
(relative to the base case), this study recommends that the subsidies that are currently being used
for petroleum products and chemical fertilizers be transferred in proportion to help initiate this
project. While it can stand on its own financial, a small subsidy provided that actually will be
less than other subsidies, could help stimulate the project and the transition. 22 These subsidies
can be in the form of initial grants, soft loans, or direct subsidies on these organic fertilizers and
clean fuel that are passed on to the consumer.
3.14.
Institutional Capacity of SajhaYatayat

3.15.1. Introduction
SajhaYatayat, a cooperative public transportation organization established in 1961, strives to

provide public transportation to commuters in the Kathmandu Valley. It also caters to interdistrict and cross-border passengers. Though it ceased operations in 2007 due to operational
challenges, SajhaYatayat has been revived through the initiative of the Government of Nepal to
address the growing problem of traffic congestion in the valley.
3.15.2. Profile and Role of SajhaYatayat
It is in this context, efforts are being made to revive SajhaYatayat. As a cooperative that was
established in the year 1961/1962 to provide efficient and affordable mass transportation options
to the Nepali public, SajhaYatayat provided the yardstick of public transportation for about three
decades. In the 1990s, the company slowly weakened and ultimately confronted major
operational problems to the extent that the buses stopped running.
22It should be noted here that petroleum products, since they are imported and distributed by a Government company are heavily subsidized
beyond direct subsidies as this company almost always operates at a loss. The biogas company proposed here actually has a cash flow with a
positive NPV over time at fairly normal prices.
37
2014/15
Realizing the need for a clear policy for managing urban transport in a context of rapid
population growth and urban development, in mid-2011 a strategy to revive SajhaYatayat was
developed and implemented by the Board of SajhaYatayat in coordination with the
Government's Ministry of Labor and Transport. The Annual General Meeting convened with this
strategy took significant decisions and reverted the organization to its genuine cooperative status,
with the election of the majority of the Board members (five out of seven) by election from the
general body and two members, ex-officio from the government (representing the Department of
Road Transportation and Department of Cooperatives). Thus, conditions were created for
independent decision-making and running of the organization while remaining close to the
government's own goals of providing safe, secure and affordable public service transportation.
SajhaYatayat is going ahead with the "Mass Public Transportation System to serve large
volume of passengers, eventually minimizing travel time, emission and traffic jams. It will take a
leading role in Public Transportation System relocating the smaller vehicles and integrating all
the operators with SajhaYatayat sharing in kind and cash basis. SajhaYatayat will be the catalytic
agent for a model Public Transportation System in Nepal. SajhaYatayat will also coordinate with
existing small vehicle operators and drivers especially ladies drivers for up to date training in
operation, optimum driving skills and respectable dealing with the passengers.
3.15.3. SajhaYatayatGrowth Strategy
To achieve the mission statement SajhaYatayat must embark on with certain growth strategies.
SajhaYatayat plans to add 25 more buses besides the existing 16 buses in one new route
currently.
Apart from the two existing routes (Lagankhel Bus park and Kalanki Airport) SajhaYatayat
plans to run 20 additional buses along the Ring road.
3.15.4. Interview with Gopal Prasad Pant (accountant)
According to the interview with Mr. Gopal P. Pant regarding the future growth plans of Sajha,
they are processing for 25 buses from Tata which will take at least a year to get it to the
execution level. 23 They have anticipated the diesel price rise at the rate of 5%/year though the
price has decreased in the second year of their operations. Among the additional 25 new buses,
20 buses will be allocated for route C. 10-10 on clockwise and anti-clockwise basis throughout
the ring road. The remaining new buses will be added to existing Lagankhel route.
23For study purposes the assumption is that these buses will come online at the same time the waste to CNG plant is ready (year 1 of the
business model)
38
2014/15

Table: SajhaYatayat Growth and Fuel Consumption:
Year
No. of KM/
buses Day for
the
fleet
Average
Bus
distance (km) km/L
per day by
each bus
1
16
2000
125
3
Addition of 25 new buses / Total of 41 buses
2
41
5125
125
3
3
41
5125
125
3
4
41
5125
125
3
5
41
5125
125
3
Consumption
Cost of Cost of Days
of diesel per fuel (Rs) diesel
Per
per day
Year
day (ltr) for 16
buses
Yearly Diesel
Expenditure
667
103
68,666
330
22,660,000
1708
1708
1708
1708
108.15
113.56
119.24
125.20
184,755
193,997
203,701
213,883
330
330
330
330
60,969,444
64,019,325
67,221,419
70,581,362
The total distance travelled by the fleet of Sajha currently is approximately 2000km. Therefore
the average distance travelled by each bus is 125km. The average mileage of each bus is
3km/liter as per the diesel consumption pattern of SajhaYatayat, which is 667 liters daily
approximately. At the current market price of diesel the cost of the total diesel consumption is
Rs. 68,666.67 per day. Considering the total operational days as 330 per year, the total cost of the
diesel per year for SajhaYatayat with 16 buses is Rs. 22,660,000.
As SajhaYatayat plans to add 25 more buses in 2072/73 the total no of buses will be 41 from the
second year. The total distance travelled by 41 buses per day will be approximately 5125km and
with the same mileage of 3km/bus the total diesel consumption of 41 buses is approximately
1708.33 liters per day. The market price for year consecutive year is assumed to increase at rate
of 5%. The total cost for the diesel for whole year with the diesel rate of Rs. 108.15 is Rs.
60,969,443.70 considering 330 days of operation.
The total cost of the diesel for the SajhaYatayat increases by 1.69 times from year 1 to year 2 as
25 new buses are added. Then the total cost of diesel rises by 5% rest of the year from year 2 to
year 5 with 5% increase in the diesel price.
With the normal diesel engine, the lubricant of a bus has to be changed at every 18,000km
distance. At a time one bus requires 16 ltrs of engine oil that costs Rs. 900/ltr.
3.15.5. Summary of Sajhas Institutional Capacity
Sajha as an organization is actually fairly price sensitive on fuel costs, as are other transport
companies and their customers. It strives to be a socially responsible public cooperative and its
buses are already cleaner and more fuel-efficient than their competitors who use out of date
fleets. This makes Sajha a perfect example to adopt these technologies, as the resistance to
change within the organization would be much lower than other Yatayat companies.
Given Sajhas price sensitivity, they are also incorporating advertising and other strategies into
39
2014/15
their revenue model. Because of this, the scenarios with fuel prices consistent to diesel, or
subsidized for the consumer make more sense. Sajha has a good public profile and their adoption
of clean fuels will lead to other companies following a similar path, strengthening the model.
These companies, like Sajha, are price sensitive; every time they raise their rates because of fuel
price changes there are protests.
Taking this into account along with the external benefits of clean fuel this institutional analysis
recommends a subsidy/price control mechanism to help control fuel prices so that Sajha and
other adopters of this technology are not impacted negatively.
40
CHAPTER 4 :
2014/15
Conclusion and Recommendations
Across the world the use of waste-to-energy for vehicle transport is increasing with Sweden
powering its bus fleet, India, Bangladesh and China converting thousands of vehicles to CNG
from waste, and companies in the US using landfill gas to fuel the garbage delivery fleets and
generate electricity.
Kathmandu Valley has a massive waste management problem that creates negative
environmental impacts globally and locally, health impacts and economic issues as well.
Additionally it is one of the most polluted cities in the world. This requires immediate action.
This proposed project to take waste (170 metric tons per day) and turn it into fuel (3640 liters
diesel equivalent) and fertilizer (30 metric tons per day) is a viable business proposition with a
positive Net Present Value over a range of scenarios.
There are alternative options that are being proposed and discussed, including the production of
electricity from the waste. However, considering the negative impacts of pollution in Kathmandu
along with frequent petrol/diesel shortages, this project could have more significant local
benefits and can be replicated across other municipalities. The primary reason is that while diesel
generators are the largest reason behind the growth in diesel imports 24 the addition of this wasteto-electricity plant may not impact load-shedding significantly. However taking 89 buses off the
road, 48 of which are older buses from other companies, will have immediate impacts on the
particulate pollution levels.
This study shows the potential and business viability of waste to biogas for transport. While it
doesnt require a subsidy, this study recommends one to stimulate the project and get it off the
ground. This actually would not be a new cost to the Nepal Government as it already subsidizes
competing products (fuel and fertilizer).
Nepal needs to take the next step to manage waste and reduce local pollution. This project
presents an option that is worth considering that will have potentially more immediate local
benefits than the alternatives.
24World Bank 2014
41
2014/15
CHAPTER 5 :
References
ADB 2008, Preparing the Secondary Towns Integrated Urban Environment Improvement
Project, Volume 7: Major Environmental Issues,
http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-document/63397/36188-01-nep-tacr-07.pdf
Adhikari, Debesh, 2013, Economy: Huge Deficit The New Spotlight Magazine,
Volume 7, Number 11. http://www.spotlightnepal.com/News/Article/ECONOMY-HugeDeficit, accessed on 22December 2014.
Bouallagui H, Ben Cheikh R, Marouani L and Hamdi M (2002) Mesophilic biogas

production
from
fruit
and
vegetable
waste
in
tubular
digester,BioresourceTechnology,Volume 86, Issue 1, January 2003, Pages 85-89.
Calculation 2640 grams CO2/liter of diesel multiplied by 3640 liters of diesel

equivalent per day. (http://www.ecoscore.be/en/how-calculate-co2-emission-level-fuelconsumption) = 9.6 tonnes of CO2 savings per day. If diesel emissions are 9.6 tonnes
then the corresponding natural gas emissions would be 89 percent of this or 8.5 tonnes
(before taking into account the renewable nature of the fuel)
Calculation done using Argonne National Laboratorys Greenhouse Regulated Emissions

and Energy Use in Transport (GREET) Carbon and Petroleum Footprint Calculator https://greet.es.anl.gov/carbon_footprint_calculator - Note: this is calibrated for the US
and landfill gas recovery for fuel and fuel transport and standards in the US so results will
slightly vary (differences likely to be more stark actually).
Clean Energy Nepal, 2014 Air Quality Status and Management in Kathmandu Valley:
Make
the
City
Air
Breathable
http://www.cen.org.np/uploaded/AQ%20Status%20and%20Managment%20in%20KV_
Maya%20Factsheet%205.pdf accessed on 20 December 2014
Devkota, Rohini P, Geoff Cockfield, Tek Narayan Maserini, Rabi Bhattarai, and
BhupendraDevkota, 2012. Assessment of Gas Emission from the Operation of a SemiAerobic Landfill Site by Solid Waste of Kathmandu Valley, Environmental Research
Journal,
6
(3)
182-186
https://eprints.usq.edu.au/23749/1/Devkota_etal_ERJ_v6n3_PV.pdf
FAO
Stat,
accessed
from
FactFish
http://www.factfish.com/statisticcountry/nepal/urea,%20consumption - accessed on 23 December 2014.
Hamal, Chandani 2014 Chitwant to Start Producing Organic Fertilizer My
42
2014/15
RepublicaOnlinehttp://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&ne
ws_id=69981accessed on 22 December 2014.
ICIMOD,
Black
Carbon
in
the
Hindu-Kush
http://geoportal.icimod.org/mgp/MENRISFactSheets/Sheets/14icimodblack_carbon_in_the_hindu_kush-himalayan_region.pdf
Lodge, Andrew 2014, Has Air Pollution Made Kathmandu Unlivable? The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/mar/21/air-pollution-kathmandu-nepal-liveablesmog-paris accessed on 21 December 2014
Manual on Municipal Solid Waste by Centre of Public Health and Environmental
Himalayas
Engineers Organization (CPHEEO)
My Climate, Organic Waste Composting in Nepal http://www.myclimate.org/carbonoffset-projects/projekt/organic-waste-composting-in-nepal-314/ (Note: Report with

emission calculations is available on the bottom right corner) accessed on 25 December
2014.
Nepal Oil Corporation, 2014 Import and Sales http://www.nepaloil.com.np/Importand-Sales/22/# accessed 21 December 2014
Project Report, TA-6293 (REG): Managing Cities in Asia, City Development Initiative
Asia (CDIA) Tchobanoglous G., Theisen, H., Vigil, (1993) A. Integrated Solid Waste
Management Engineering Principles and Management Issues. McGraw-Hill international
editions. Singapore
Thapa, B., Sapkota, L. and Khanal.,P (2009) Waste Management and Leachate treatment
at Landfill Sites of Nepal, B. Tech. in Environmental Engineering Thesis, Department of
Environmental Science and Engineering, Kathmandu University, Nepal
Thapa, B. (2012) Production of Ethanol from Solid Waste, M. Tech. in Civil Engineering
(Environment) Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, National Institute of TechnologyKurukshetra, India
The World Bank Group, 2014 Diesel Power Generation: Inventories and Black Carbon
Emissions
in
Kathmandu
Valley
Nepal,
http://www.cen.org.np/uploaded/1948_[final]%20Report_DG%20Set%20Study_Nepal.p
df accessed on 22 December 2014.
US Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center, Natural Gas Vehicle

Emissions http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/natural_gas_emissions.html, accessed
43
2014/15
on 22 December 2014
Zimmer, Carl, 2013 Black Carbon and Global Warming: Its Worse than We Thought
Yale
360,
January
17th,
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/carl_zimmer_black_carbon_and_global_warming_worse_tha
n_thought/2611/, accessed on 20 November 2014
44
2014/15
CHAPTER 6 :
ANNEX
ANNEX 1 QUANTIFICATION OF WASTE

Table 3: Detail of Vehicle that transfers waste to Teku Transfer staion
S.N
Type of vehicle
Size in cu.m
NO.S of available Vehicle
Trips
Chinese Garbage Truck
33
150
Tripper (Eicher)
4.5
21
Tripper (Mazda)
4.5
20
Skip (EICHER + TATA)
4.5
15
Skip (Toyota)
18
Chinese Bin
19
Skip (TATA)
4.5
Bucket (TOYOTA)
5.5
14
Table 4: Estimation of Density of waste at Teku Transfer station

Type of Vehicle
Initial
Final
Weight Capacity Volume Density of Waste
Weight
Weight
of
of
of
(Empty) (Loaded) Waste
Vehicle
waste
in Kg
in Kg
in kg
in cu.m
in cu.m
1790
2365
575
191.67
1790
2280
490
163.33
Tripper (Mazda)
3380
4735
1355
4.5
4.5
301.11
Tripper (Mazda)
3380
5105
1725
4.5
4.5
383.33
Average 259.86
45
2014/15
Table 5: Estimation of Waste that is collected at Teku Transfer station

Type of Vehicle
Density
of Volume
No.s of trips in Weight
of
waste
() container
a day (n)
in
(kg/cu m)
of
waste
vehicle
(TONS)
in cu.m(V)
260
150
117
Tripper (Eicher)
260
4.5
21
24.57
Tripper (Mazda)
260
4.5
20
23.4
Skip (EICHER + TATA)
260
4.5
15
17.55
Skip (Toyota)
260
18
18.72
Chinese Bin
260
19
24.7
Skip (TATA)
260
4.5
8.19
Bucket (TOYOTA)
260
5.5
14
20.02
Total
254.15
Table 6: Quantification of waste that reaches to Landfill at Alabu, Bhaktapur

Type of vehicle
No
of Capacity
of NO of Density
Vehicle Vehicle(cu.m) Trips
of Wt of waste
waste(kg/cu.m) in TONS
per
day
Pick up Van
1.34
245
11.8188
Power trailor Tractor
1.62
245
0.3969
Mini truck
245
5.88
5.5
245
5.39
Total
23.4857
Tripper
(ASHOK 2
LEYLAND)
46
2014/15
Table 7: Quantification of waste that reaches to Landfill at Sundhargaht, Kirtipur

S.N
Type of Capacity
of No
of Density of waste Weight
of
vehicle
Vehicle(cu.m) trips
(kg/cu.m)
Waste in TONS
Tractor
245
4.41
Mini
TATA
4.5
245
2.205
TOTAL
6.62
Table 8:Quantification of waste from MadhyapurThimi that reaches toTeku Transfer station
Type
of Size
vehicle
Vehicle
Tipper
5.5
of No of trips
Density of waste
Weight of waste in TONs
245
2.695
(EICHER)
Table 9: Estimation of density of waste at Kharibot transfer station

Type of Vehicle
Initial
Weight Final
(Empty) in Kg
Weight
Weight
Volume
of Waste of
Volume
Density of
of waste Waste(kg/
(Loaded) in kg
container in cu.m
in Kg
of
cu m)
Vehicle
in cu.m
Tractor (EICHER)
2545
3850
1305
2.3
3.450
378.261
Tripper ( EICHER)
4150
4730
580
3.5
3.500
165.714
Tripper ( EICHER)
3200
4030
830
3.5
4.375
189.714
Average
244.563
47
2014/15
Table 10: Estimation of waste that reaches to Kharibot Transfer sation

Type of Vehicle
Density of Capacity No
waste
in of
kg/cu m
vehicle
of No.s
of Weight
vehicle
trips in a in
(N)
day (n)
(TONS)
in cu.m
Tripper ( EICHER)
245
3.5
10
25.725
Tractor (EICHER)
245
2.3
2.254
Dumper Placer (TATA Truck ) 245
11.76
Dumper Placer (EICHER )
4.5
1.1025
TOTAL
40.8415
245
Table 11: Estimation of density of waste at Kalimati

Type
Vehicle
Mini TATA
of Initial
Final
Weight
Weight
Weight
of Waste of
(Empty)
(Loaded) in kg
Vehicle
in Kg
in Kg
in cu.m
4390
7890
3500
Volume
Volume
Density
of
of waste Waste(kg/cu m)
4.5
in cu.m
5.625
622.22
Table12 :Quantification of waste Kalimati Fruit and Vegetable Market

S.N
Type of Size
of No
of Density of waste Wt of waste in
Container
vehicle
trips
in (kg/cu m)
TONS
cu.m
Mini
TATA
4.5 cu.m
622
5.5
48
2014/15
ANNEX 2 COMPOSITION OF WASTE
Table 13: Composition of waste of Kirtipur Municipality

Type of waste
Composition of waste in
(%) in Mean
Standard
Value
Deviation
different sampling dates

19-Oct
21-Oct
25-Oct
Organic waste 1
62.674
56.147
59.821
59.547
2.672
Organic waste 2
0.881
0.774
0.798
0.818
0.046
Paper
4.556
17.425
12.961
11.647
5.335
Plastic
18.222
11.617
11.964
13.934
3.035
Metal
2.278
0.484
0.499
1.087
0.842
Others
11.389
13.553
13.958
12.967
1.128
Total
100
100
100
100
Organic waste 1: Green waste
Organic waste 2: Brown waste
49
2014/15

Composition of waste of Kirtipur Municiplaity
13%
1%
Organic waste 1
Organic waste 2
14%
Paper
Plastic
59%
12%
Metal
Others
1%
Table 14: Composition of waste in Bhaktapur Municipality

Type of waste
Composition of waste in (%) in different Mean
Standard
sampling dates
Value
Deviation
17-Oct
20-Oct
27-Oct
Organic waste 1
58.058
56.604
55.172
56.611
1.443
Organic waste 2
0.3
0.100
0.173
Paper
9.009
5.66
6.897
7.189
1.693
Plastic
17.017
22.642
17.241
18.967
3.185
Metal
0.1
3.448
1.183
1.962
Others
15.516
15.094
17.241
15.950
1.137
Total
100
100
100
100.000
0.000
50
2014/15

Waste Composition of Bhaktapur Municipality
16%
1%
Organic waste 1
Organic waste 2
Paper
19%
Plastic
57%
Metal
Others
7%
0%
Table 15: Composition of waste at MadhyapurThimi Municipality

Type of waste
(%) Mean Value
in different sampling dates
Standard
Deviations
17-Oct
19-Oct
28-Oct
Organic waste 61.023
61.815
60.185
61.008
0.666
0.897
1.224
1.156
1
organic waste 2.774
2
Paper
8.321
7.976
9.259
8.519
0.542
Plastic
16.263
14.955
16.667
15.962
0.731
Metal
0.399
0.133
0.188
Others
11.9
13.958
13.889
13.249
0.954
Total
100
100
100
100.000
0.000
51
2014/15
Waste composition of Madhyapur Thimi Municipality
0%
13%
Organic waste 1
Organic waste 2
16%
Paper
Plastic
61%
9%
Metal
Others
1%
Table 16: Composition of waste for Kathmandu Metropolitan city (West sector(WS))
Type of waste
Composition of waste in (%) in different Average
Standard
sampling dates (West Sector)
Deviation
26-Oct
27-Oct
31-Oct
Organic waste 1
53.61
56.211
54.25
54.69
1.36
Organic waste 2
1.2
0.985
0.546
0.91
0.33
Paper
13.458
10.458
10.246
11.39
1.80
Plastic
23.458
23.871
23.543
23.62
0.22
Metal
1.485
0.984
2.145
1.54
0.58
Glass
0.547
1.148
1.145
0.95
0.35
Construction Materials
1.84
2.145
2.148
2.04
0.18
Others
4.402
4.198
5.977
4.86
0.97
Total
100
100
100
100.00
0.00
52
2014/15
Table 17: Composition of waste for Kathmandu Metropolitan city (East sector(ES))
Type of waste
(%) Average
in different sampling dates
Standard
Deviation
(East Sector)
27-Oct
31-Oct
3-Oct
Organic waste 1
55.61
54.211
58.174
56.00
2.010
Organic waste 2
1.124
1.231
0.845
1.07
0.199
Paper
10.456
12.475
10.974
11.30
1.049
Plastic
23.458
21.871
24.486
23.27
1.317
Metal
1.285
0.984
0.974
1.08
0.177
Glass
0.747
1.148
0.856
0.92
0.207
2.74
2.231
0.987
1.99
0.902
Others
4.604
5.849
2.704
4.39
1.584
Total
100.024
100
100
100.0
0.000
53
2014/15
Table 18: Composition of waste for Kathmandu Metropolitan city (North sector(NS))
Type of waste
(%) in different Average
sampling dates (North Sector)
Standard
Deviation
26-Oct
27-Oct
31-Oct
Organic waste 1
55.25
58.474
57.572
57.099
1.663
Organic waste 2
1.24
0.892
1.494
1.209
0.302
Paper
10.125
8.028
4.6
7.584
2.789
Plastic
20.245
20.813
21.627
20.895
0.695
Metal
1.234
0.793
0.767
0.931
0.262
Glass
1.54
1.288
2.489
1.772
0.633
Construction
1.642
1.189
2.987
1.939
0.935
Others
8.724
8.523
8.464
8.570
0.136
Total
100
100
100
100
Materials
54
2014/15
Table 19: Composition of waste for Kathmandu Metropolitan city (Central Sector (CS))
Type of waste
different
sampling
dates
(%) in Average
(Central
Standard
Deviation
Sector)
27-Oct
31-Oct
3-Oct
Organic waste 1
55.25
56.174
58.572
56.665
1.715
Organic waste 2
1.67
0.945
1.214
1.276
0.366
Paper
11.516
12.974
13.458
12.649
1.011
Plastic
23.543
22.486
18.457
21.495
2.684
Metal
0.975
1.351
1.241
1.189
0.193
Glass
1.254
0.956
2.413
1.541
0.770
Construction
1.348
1.243
0.935
1.175
0.215
Others
4.444
3.871
3.71
4.008
0.386
Total
100
100
100
100
Materials
55
2014/15
Table 20: Composition of waste for Kathmandu Metropolitan city (City Core (CC))
Type of waste
(%) in Average
different sampling dates (City Core)
Standard
Deviation
31-Oct
3-Oct
1-Oct
Organic waste 1
52.61
54.211
55.25
54.024
1.086
Organic waste 2
0.97
1.271
1.345
1.195
0.162
Paper
12.456
8.245
9.275
9.992
1.792
Plastic
25.451
23.256
22.145
23.617
1.374
Metal
0.345
1.546
1.458
1.116
0.547
Glass
0.546
2.876
2.874
2.099
1.098
2.46
2.986
2.724
2.723
0.215
Others
5.162
5.609
4.929
5.233
0.282
Total
100
100
100
100
8.2046E15
56
2014/15
Table 21: Composition of waste for Kathmandu Metropolitan city (over all)
Type
waste
of Composition of waste in (%) in different Sectors Average

in Kathmandu Metropolitancity
Standard
Deviation
WS
ES
NS
CS
CC
54.69
56
57.099
56.665
54.024
55.696
1.305
0.91
1.07
1.209
1.276
1.195
1.132
0.145
Paper
11.39
11.3
7.584
12.649
9.992
10.583
1.922
Plastic
23.62
23.27
20.895
21.495
23.617
22.579
1.289
Metal
1.54
1.08
0.931
1.189
1.116
1.171
0.227
Glass
0.95
0.92
1.772
1.541
2.099
1.456
0.516
Construction 2.04
1.99
1.939
1.175
2.723
1.973
0.549
Organic
waste 1
Organic
waste 2
Materials
Others
4.86
4.39
8.57
4.008
5.233
5.412
1.825
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
WS: West Sector , ES: East Sector, NS: North Sector , CS: Central Sector, CC: City Core
57
2014/15

Composition of waste from Kathmandu Metropolitan city
1% 2%
1%
5%
Organic waste 1
Organic waste 2
Paper
23%
Plastic
Metal
56%
Glass
11%
Others
1%
Table 22:Composition waste at Kharibot Transfer station, Lalitpur
Type of waste
(%) in different Average
sampling dates
Standard
Deviation
14-Oct 20-Oct
25-Oct
27-Oct
29-Oct
Organic waste 1
53.988 57.572
59.56
56.38
61
57.700
2.733
Organic waste 2
0.974
1.494
0.894
0.989
0.842
1.039
0.262
Paper
9.555
4.6
11.25
11.869
8.2
9.095
2.896
Plastic
27.083 21.627
20.1
18.793
19.3
21.381
3.363
Metal
0.204
0.767
0.3
0.297
1.2
0.554
0.423
Glass
2.921
2.489
1.286
1.52
1.643
1.139
Construction
0.292
2.987
1.3
1.116
1.170
Others
4.982
8.464
6.596
10.386
7.3
7.546
2.028
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100.072
0.162
Materials
58
2014/15
Composition of waste at Khahribot transfer station

2%
1%
1%
7%
Organic waste 1
Organic waste 2
Paper
21%
Plastic
Metal
58%
Glass
Construction
9%
Others
1%
Table 23:Composition of waste in Kalimati

Type of waste
(%) in Mean
Standard
Value
Deviation
different sampling dates

19-Oct
21-Oct
25-Oct
Organic waste 1
90
89.146
93.246
90.797
2.163
Organic waste 2
4.017
3.854
2.254
3.375
0.974
Paper
2.564
1.892
1.25
1.902
0.657
Plastic
2.419
3.308
2.05
2.592
0.647
Others
1.8
1.2
1.333
0.416
Total
100
100
100
100.000
0.000
59
2014/15

Table 24:Lab results from NESS
Location
Date
of C:N ratio Average
Sampling
Lalitpur
C:N ratio
at AverageVSS Moisture
550oC in at 550oC in in %
%
31.50
44.41
85
39.63
69.03
49.88
82
13-10-2014
10.73
20-10-2014
22.26
46.10
27-10-2014
19.96
55.64
17-10-2014
20.25
20-10-2014
17.80
19-10-2014
16.50
31-10-2014
22.73
19-10-2014
16.67
16.67
33.24
33.24
MadhyapurThimi 28-10-2014
16.80
16.80
42.67
42.67
Kathmandu
31-10-2014
14
18.82
50.13
58.47
72.83
03-11-2014
23.65
Bhaktapur
Kalimati
Kirtipur
17.69
VSS
19.03
40.01
39.22
19.615
48.73
51.03
66.81
60
2014/15
ANNEX 3 GRAPHS OF RESULTS FROM NESS LABORATORY
Lab results of organic waste of Lalitpur

85
90
80
70
55.64
60
46.1
50
40
31.5
VSS
30
20
10
C:N ratio
22.26
Moisture
19.96
10.73
0
13-10-2014
20-10-2014
27-10-2014
Date of Sampling
Lab result of organic waste of Bhaktapur

80
69.03
70
60
50
40.01
40
30
20
39.22
C:N ratio
VSS
20.25
Moisture
17.8
10
0
17-10-2014
20-10-2014
Date of Sampling
61
2014/15

Lab result of organic waste of Kalimati
90
82
80
70
60
51.03
48.73
50
C:N ratio
40
30
16.5
20
VSS
22.73
Moisture
10
0
19-10-2014
31-10-2014
Date of Sampling
Lab result of organic waste of Kathmandu

80
72.83
66.81
70
60
62.67
63.24
50.13
50
C:N ratio
40
30
20
VSS
23.65
16.8
14
16.67
Moisture
10
0
31/10/2014
3/11/2014
28-10-2014
19-10-2014
Date of Sampling
62
2014/15
Lab result of organic waste of Thimi

42.67
45
40
35
30
25
20
C:N ratio
16.8
VSS
15
10
5
0
28-10-2014
Date of Sampling
63
2014/15
ANNEX 4 WASTE FLOW PATTERN IN MUNICIPALITIES OF

KATHMANDU VALLEY
Not collected
Composting
Recycling
Composting
Recycling
Kathmandu Metropolitan city
Teku Transfer
Station
Sisdole Landfill
site
Not collected
Composting
Recycling
Lalitpur Sub Metropolitan City
Composting
Recycling
Kharibot
Transfer
Not
collected
Animal
fodder
Composting
Recycling
Kalimati fruit and vegetable market

Animal fodder to Nala,
64
2014/15
ANNEX 6- LAB REPORTS AND LOG BOOK OF MUNICIPALITIES
65
2014/15
66
2014/15
67
2014/15
68
2014/15
69
2014/15
70
2014/15
71
2014/15
72
2014/15
73
2014/15
74
2014/15
75
2014/15
76
2014/15
ANNEX 7-PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 1: Instrument used for weighing the truck
Photo 2: Weighing the truck with waste
77
2014/15
Photo 3: Weighing the truck without waste
Photo 4: Weighing of sample
78
2014/15
Photo 5: Separation of 100kg of sample
Photo 6: Mixing of the sample
79
2014/15
Photo7: Separation of sample into 4 quadrants
Photo 8: Diagonal Waste are removed
80
2014/15
Photo 9: Thorough mixing of waste
81
2014/15
Photo 10: Separation of waste into different components
Photo 11: Weighing of each component separately

Location of sample: MadhyapurThimi
Date of sampling:28 Oct 2014
Collection of waste in a vehicle
82
2014/15
Unloading the vehicle at Teku transfer station
Part of sample taken from the vehicle and well mixed
83
2014/15
Division of sample into 4 quadrants
Removal of diagonally opposite wastes
84
2014/15
Mixing of remaining wastes
Division of waste into 4 quadrants
85
2014/15
Removal of diagonally opposite waste sample
Separation of waste into different components
86
2014/15
Weighing of each components
87
2014/15
ANNEX 7-CALCULATIONS
Base Scenario (Normal Prices)
Fuel Price - Rs 75/ liter
Fertilizer price - Rs 30/ kg
Balance Sheet
Particulars
Liabilities
Share Capital
Equity
Reserve & Surplus
Annex
7.1
(24,232,500.00)
(96,025,961.75)
(114,645,069.46)
(87,309,251.84)
(16,715,504.71)
63,409,217.20
Long Term Borrowing
7.2
1,857,458,462.68
1,798,997,229.45
1,734,689,872.90
1,663,951,780.69
1,586,139,879.25
1,500,546,787.68
Current Liabilities
Creditors
Total Liabilities
1,833,225,962.68
1,702,971,267.70
1,620,044,803.44
1,576,642,528.84
1,569,424,374.54
1,563,956,004.88
1,825,148,462.68
8,077,500.00
1,833,225,962.68
1,551,376,193.28
32,008,653.92
119,586,420.50
1,702,971,267.70
1,318,669,764.29
38,215,023.15
263,160,016.00
1,620,044,803.44
1,120,869,299.65
29,103,083.95
426,670,145.25
1,576,642,528.84
952,738,904.70
5,571,834.90
611,113,634.94
1,569,424,374.54
809,828,068.99
(31,704,608.60)
785,832,544.48
1,563,956,004.88
Assets
Capital Work in Progress
Fixed Assets
DTA
Cash
Total Assets
7.3
7.4
7.5

88
2014/15
Balance Sheet
Particulars
Liabilities
Share Capital
Equity
Reserve & Surplus
Annex
10
7.1
132,794,977.81
177,570,230.31
406,574,816.13
674,034,954.45
980,325,924.29
Long Term Borrowing
7.2
1,406,394,386.95
1,302,826,746.14
1,188,902,341.25
1,063,585,495.88
925,736,965.97
1,539,189,364.75
1,480,396,976.45
1,595,477,157.38
1,737,620,450.33
1,906,062,890.26
688,353,858.64
(82,249,793.20)
933,085,299.31
1,539,189,364.75
585,100,779.85
(145,762,316.06)
1,041,058,512.66
1,480,396,976.45
497,335,662.87
422,735,313.44
1,314,885,136.89
1,737,620,450.33
359,325,016.42
1,546,737,873.83
1,906,062,890.26
Current Liabilities
Creditors
Total Liabilities
Assets
Fixed Assets
DTA
Cash
Total Assets
7.3
7.4
7.5
1,098,141,494.51
1,595,477,157.38

89
2014/15
Balance Sheet
Particulars
Liabilities
Share Capital
Equity
Reserve & Surplus
Annex
11
12
13
14
15
7.1
1,326,180,697.52
1,712,667,664.62
2,141,174,338.55
2,613,396,378.70
3,131,331,398.26
Long Term Borrowing
7.2
774,103,583.06
607,306,861.87
423,830,468.56
222,006,435.91
0.00
2,100,284,280.58
2,319,974,526.49
2,565,004,807.11
2,835,402,814.61
3,131,331,398.27
305,426,263.96
1,794,858,016.62
2,100,284,280.58
259,612,324.37
2,060,362,202.13
2,319,974,526.49
220,670,475.71
2,344,334,331.39
2,565,004,807.11
187,569,904.35
2,647,832,910.26
2,835,402,814.61
159,434,418.70
2,971,896,979.57
3,131,331,398.27
Current Liabilities
Creditors
Total Liabilities
Assets
Fixed Assets
DTA
Cash
Total Assets
7.3
7.4
7.5

90
2014/15
Profit and Loss Statement
Particulars
Annex
7.6
0
0
0
-
1
328,500,000.00
99,645,000.00
428,145,000.00
2
344,925,000.00
104,627,250.00
449,552,250.00
3
362,171,250.00
109,858,612.50
472,029,862.50
4
380,279,812.50
115,351,543.13
495,631,355.63
5
399,293,803.13
121,119,120.28
520,412,923.41
7.7
7.4
24,830,000.00
-
10,950,000.00
26,071,500.00
273,772,269.40
19,600,000.00
10,950,000.00
27,375,075.00
232,706,428.99
20,580,000.00
10,950,000.00
28,743,828.75
197,800,464.64
21,609,000.00
10,950,000.00
30,181,020.19
168,130,394.95
22,689,450.00
10,950,000.00
31,690,071.20
142,910,835.70
23,823,922.50
5,000,000.00
500,000.00
900,000.00
1,080,000.00
-
5,000,000.00
525,000.00
945,000.00
1,260,000.00
185,745,846.27
551,250.00
992,250.00
1,323,000.00
179,899,722.94
578,812.50
1,041,862.50
1,389,150.00
173,468,987.29
607,753.13
1,093,955.63
1,458,607.50
166,395,178.07
638,140.78
1,148,653.41
1,531,537.88
158,613,987.93
Total Expenditure
32,310,000.00
523,869,615.67
474,377,726.94
435,582,105.68 401,506,359.45
371,307,149.39
Net Profit Befor Tax

Tax @ 25%
Current Tax
Deferred Tax
Net Profit after Tax
(32,310,000.00)
(8,077,500.00)
(8,077,500.00)
(24,232,500.00)
(95,724,615.67)
(23,931,153.92)
(23,931,153.92)
(71,793,461.75)
(24,825,476.94)
(6,206,369.23)
(6,206,369.23)
(18,619,107.70)
36,447,756.82
9,111,939.20
9,111,939.20
27,335,817.61
149,105,774.02
68,981,052.10
31,704,608.60
37,276,443.50
80,124,721.91
Revenue from fertilizers Sales

Revenue from Gas Sales
Total Revenue
Initial Cost
Operating Cost
Cost of bags for fertilisers
Staff Cost
Depreciation
Running and maintenance Cost
Other Operating cost
Communication and education cost
Office running Cost
Electricity Cost
Lease Rental
Interest Payment
Salvage Value
7.8

91
94,124,996.17
23,531,249.04
23,531,249.04
70,593,747.13
2014/15
Particulars
Annex
7.6
6
419,258,493.28
127,175,076.30
546,433,569.58
7
440,221,417.95
133,533,830.11
573,755,248.06
8
462,232,488.84
140,210,521.62
602,443,010.46
9
485,344,113.28
147,221,047.70
632,565,160.98
10
509,611,318.95
154,582,100.08
664,193,419.03
7.7
7.4
10,950,000.00
33,274,574.76
121,474,210.35
25,015,118.63
10,950,000.00
34,938,303.49
103,253,078.80
26,265,874.56
10,950,000.00
36,685,218.67
87,765,116.98
27,579,168.28
10,950,000.00
38,519,479.60
74,600,349.43
28,958,126.70
10,950,000.00
40,445,453.58
63,410,297.02
30,406,033.03
670,047.82
1,206,086.08
1,608,114.77
150,054,678.77
703,550.21
1,266,390.38
1,688,520.51
140,639,438.69
738,727.72
1,329,709.90
1,772,946.53
130,282,674.61
775,664.11
1,396,195.39
1,861,593.86
118,890,234.13
814,447.31
1,466,005.16
1,954,673.55
106,358,549.59
Total Expenditure
344,252,831.16
319,705,156.64
297,103,562.70
275,951,643.22
255,805,459.25

Tax @ 25%
Current Tax
Deferred Tax
202,180,738.41
132,794,977.81
82,249,793.20
50,545,184.60
69,385,760.61
254,050,091.41
209,274,838.91
145,762,316.06
63,512,522.85
44,775,252.50
305,339,447.76
76,334,861.94
222,097,178.00
(145,762,316.06)
229,004,585.82
356,613,517.76
89,153,379.44
89,153,379.44
267,460,138.32
408,387,959.78
102,096,989.95
102,096,989.95
306,290,969.84

Total Revenue
Initial Cost
Operating Cost
Staff Cost
Depreciation
Office running Cost
Electricity Cost
Lease Rental
Interest Payment
Salvage Value
7.8

92
2014/15
Particulars
Annex
7.6
11
535,091,884.90
162,311,205.09
697,403,089.98
12
561,846,479.14
170,426,765.34
732,273,244.48
13
589,938,803.10
178,948,103.61
768,886,906.70
14
619,435,743.25
187,895,508.79
807,331,252.04
15
650,407,530.42
197,290,284.23
847,697,814.64
7.7
7.4
10,950,000.00
42,467,726.26
53,898,752.46
31,926,334.68
10,950,000.00
44,591,112.58
45,813,939.59
33,522,651.42
10,950,000.00
46,820,668.20
38,941,848.65
35,198,783.99
10,950,000.00
49,161,701.61
33,100,571.36
36,958,723.19
10,950,000.00
51,619,786.69
28,135,485.65
38,806,659.35
855,169.68
1,539,305.42
2,052,407.23
92,573,696.60
897,928.16
1,616,270.69
2,155,027.59
77,410,358.31
942,824.57
1,697,084.23
2,262,778.97
60,730,686.19
989,965.80
1,781,938.44
2,375,917.92
42,383,046.86
1,039,464.09
1,871,035.36
2,494,713.82
22,200,643.59
Total Expenditure
236,263,392.34
216,957,288.34
197,544,674.81
177,701,865.17
157,117,788.55

Tax @ 25%
Current Tax
Deferred Tax
461,139,697.64
115,284,924.41
115,284,924.41
345,854,773.23
515,315,956.14
128,828,989.03
128,828,989.03
386,486,967.10
571,342,231.90
142,835,557.97
142,835,557.97
428,506,673.92
629,629,386.87
157,407,346.72
157,407,346.72
472,222,040.15
690,580,026.09
172,645,006.52
172,645,006.52
517,935,019.57

Total Revenue
Initial Cost
Operating Cost
Staff Cost
Depreciation
Office running Cost
Electricity Cost
Lease Rental
Interest Payment
Salvage Value
7.8

93
2014/15
Cash Flow Statement
Cash Flow From Operation

Taxes
Net Proft Before Tax
Adjustments
Depreciation
Cash Generated from operations
Less: Income Tax Paid
Net Cash Flow from operating
Activities
Cash flow from Investing Activities
Purchase of Processing Plant
Purchase of Sewing machine for
fertilizer bags
Purchse of Vehicles
Purchse of bio Gas generator
Purchase of office equipments
Interest Cap
Cash flow from Financing
Activities
Bank Loan
Bank Loan Repayment
Net Cashflow from Financing
Activities
Net increase in Cash & Cash Eqv
Opening Cash & Cash Eqv
Closing Cash & Cash Eqv
(24,232,500.00)
(8,077,500.00)
(32,310,000.00)
(71,793,461.75) (18,619,107.70) 27,335,817.61

(23,931,153.92) (6,206,369.23) 9,111,939.20
(95,724,615.67) (24,825,476.94) 36,447,756.82
70,593,747.13
23,531,249.04
94,124,996.17
80,124,721.91
68,981,052.10
149,105,774.02
(32,310,000.00)
-
273,772,269.40
178,047,653.73
-
232,706,428.99
207,880,952.06
-
197,800,464.64
234,248,221.46
-
168,130,394.95
262,255,391.12
-
142,910,835.70
292,016,609.72
31,704,608.60
(32,310,000.00)
178,047,653.73
207,880,952.06
234,248,221.46
262,255,391.12
260,312,001.12
1,857,458,462.68
0
(58,461,233.23) (64,307,356.56) (70,738,092.21) (77,811,901.43)
(85,593,091.57)
1,857,458,462.68
(58,461,233.23) (64,307,356.56) (70,738,092.21) (77,811,901.43)
(85,593,091.57)
0
-
119,586,420.50
119,586,420.50
174,718,909.55
611,113,634.94
785,832,544.48
(1,647,788,602.44)
(500,000.00)
(6,000,000.00)
(1,000,000.00)
(1,000,000.00)
(168,859,860.24)
(1,825,148,462.68)
143,573,595.50
119,586,420.50
263,160,016.00
163,510,129.25
263,160,016.00
426,670,145.25

94
184,443,489.69
426,670,145.25
611,113,634.94
2014/15
Cash Flow Statement

Taxes
Adjustments
Depreciation
Activities
fertilizer bags
Purchse of Vehicles
Interest Cap
Activities
Bank Loan
Bank Loan Repayment
Activities
10
69,385,760.61
132,794,977.81
202,180,738.41
44,775,252.50
209,274,838.91
254,050,091.41
229,004,585.82
76,334,861.94
305,339,447.76
267,460,138.32
89,153,379.44
356,613,517.76
306,290,969.84
102,096,989.95
408,387,959.78
121,474,210.35
323,654,948.76
82,249,793.20
103,253,078.80
357,303,170.21
145,762,316.06
87,765,116.98
393,104,564.74
222,097,178.00
74,600,349.43
431,213,867.19
89,153,379.44
63,410,297.02
471,798,256.80
102,096,989.95
241,405,155.56
211,540,854.15
171,007,386.74
342,060,487.75
369,701,266.85
(94,152,400.73)
(103,567,640.81)
(113,924,404.89)
(125,316,845.37)
(137,848,529.91)
(94,152,400.73)
(103,567,640.81)
(113,924,404.89)
(125,316,845.37)
(137,848,529.91)
147,252,754.83
785,832,544.48
933,085,299.31
107,973,213.35
57,082,981.85
216,743,642.38
231,852,736.94
933,085,299.31
1,041,058,512.66 1,098,141,494.51 1,314,885,136.89
1,041,058,512.66 1,098,141,494.51 1,314,885,136.89 1,546,737,873.83

95
2014/15
Cash Flow Statement

Taxes
Adjustments
Depreciation
Activities
fertilizer bags
Purchse of Vehicles
Interest Cap
Activities
Bank Loan
Bank Loan Repayment
Activities
11
12
13
14
15
345,854,773.23
115,284,924.41
461,139,697.64
386,486,967.10
128,828,989.03
515,315,956.14
428,506,673.92
142,835,557.97
571,342,231.90
472,222,040.15
157,407,346.72
629,629,386.87
517,935,019.57
172,645,006.52
690,580,026.09
53,898,752.46
515,038,450.11
115,284,924.41
45,813,939.59
561,129,895.73
128,828,989.03
38,941,848.65
610,284,080.55
142,835,557.97
33,100,571.36
662,729,958.22
157,407,346.72
28,135,485.65
718,715,511.74
172,645,006.52
399,753,525.70
432,300,906.70
467,448,522.58
505,322,611.51
546,070,505.22
(151,633,382.90)
(166,796,721.19)
(183,476,393.31)
(201,824,032.64)
(222,006,435.91)
(151,633,382.90)
(166,796,721.19)
(183,476,393.31)
(201,824,032.64)
(222,006,435.91)
248,120,142.79
1,546,737,873.83
1,794,858,016.62
265,504,185.50
283,972,129.27
303,498,578.86
324,064,069.31
1,794,858,016.62 2,060,362,202.13 2,344,334,331.39 2,647,832,910.26
2,060,362,202.13 2,344,334,331.39 2,647,832,910.26 2,971,896,979.57

96
2014/15

Annex 7.1
Reserve and Surpluses

Particulars
Opening Reserve & Surplus
Current Year Profit T/f to B/s
Closing Reserve & Surplus
0
(24,232,500.00)
(24,232,500.00)
1
(24,232,500.00)
(71,793,461.75)
(96,025,961.75)
2
(96,025,961.75)
(18,619,107.70)
(114,645,069.46)
3
(114,645,069.46)
27,335,817.61
(87,309,251.84)
6
63,409,217.20
69,385,760.61
132,794,977.81
7
132,794,977.81
44,775,252.50
177,570,230.31
8
177,570,230.31
229,004,585.82
406,574,816.13
9
406,574,816.13
267,460,138.32
674,034,954.45
10
674,034,954.45
306,290,969.84
980,325,924.29
11
980,325,924.29
345,854,773.23
1,326,180,697.52
12
1,326,180,697.52
386,486,967.10
1,712,667,664.62
13
1,712,667,664.62
428,506,673.92
2,141,174,338.55
14
2,141,174,338.55
472,222,040.15
2,613,396,378.70
15
2,613,396,378.70
517,935,019.57
3,131,331,398.26

97
4
(87,309,251.84)
70,593,747.13
(16,715,504.71)
5
(16,715,504.71)
80,124,721.91
63,409,217.20
2014/15

Annex 7.2
Particulars
Opening Outstanding balance
1,857,458,462.68 1,857,458,462.68 1,798,997,229.45 1,734,689,872.90 1,663,951,780.69 1,586,139,879.25
Principal Repayment
Closing Outstanding balance
1,857,458,462.68 1,798,997,229.45 1,734,689,872.90 1,663,951,780.69 1,586,139,879.25 1,500,546,787.68
6
1,500,546,787.68
94,152,400.73
1,406,394,386.95
11
925,736,965.97
151,633,382.90
774,103,583.06
1
58,461,233.23
7
1,406,394,386.95
103,567,640.81
1,302,826,746.14
12
774,103,583.06
166,796,721.19
607,306,861.87
8
1,302,826,746.14
113,924,404.89
1,188,902,341.25
13
607,306,861.87
183,476,393.31
423,830,468.56
64,307,356.56
9
1,188,902,341.25
125,316,845.37
1,063,585,495.88
14
423,830,468.56
201,824,032.64
222,006,435.91
70,738,092.21
10
1,063,585,495.88
137,848,529.91
925,736,965.97
15
222,006,435.91
222,006,435.91
0.00

98
77,811,901.43
5
85,593,091.57
2014/15
Annex 7.3
Initial Cost
Particulars
System Cost
Freight
Conversion Cost
Cost of Cylinders
Storage plant
Tank construction cost for Water
Boring Cost for water supply
Water Filtration plant
Waste water management System
Sewing machine for fertilizer bags
Vehicle Cost (20 lacs *3)
Bio Gas Generator Cost
Fertilizer Shed Construction cost
Office Setup cost
Interest Capitalised during Grrce period of 1
year
Total
Amount
1,553,934,700.00
10,000,000.00
8,878,048.78
60,725,853.66
5,000,000.00
750,000.00
500,000.00
1,500,000.00
5,000,000.00
500,000.00
6,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,500,000.00
1,000,000.00
168,859,860.24
1,825,148,462.68

99
2014/15

Annex 7.4
Depreciation
Particulars
Opening WDV
Depreciation @ 15%
Closing WDV
1
1,825,148,462.68
273,772,269.40
1,551,376,193.28
6
809,828,068.99
121,474,210.35
688,353,858.64
7
688,353,858.64
103,253,078.80
585,100,779.85
11
359,325,016.42
53,898,752.46
305,426,263.96
12
305,426,263.96
45,813,939.59
259,612,324.37
8
585,100,779.85
87,765,116.98
497,335,662.87
13
259,612,324.37
38,941,848.65
220,670,475.71
2
1,551,376,193.28
232,706,428.99
1,318,669,764.29
9
497,335,662.87
74,600,349.43
422,735,313.44
14
220,670,475.71
33,100,571.36
187,569,904.35
3
1,318,669,764.29
197,800,464.64
1,120,869,299.65
10
422,735,313.44
63,410,297.02
359,325,016.42
15
187,569,904.35
28,135,485.65
159,434,418.70

100
4
1,120,869,299.65
168,130,394.95
952,738,904.70
5
952,738,904.70
142,910,835.70
809,828,068.99
2014/15

Annex 7.5
Particulars
NPBT
DTA due to loss/ Tax liab at times of
profit
Cumulative DTA
Net Tax expense
6
202,180,738.41
50,545,184.60
82,249,793.20
82249793.2
7
254,050,091.41
63,512,522.85
145,762,316.06
145762316.1
(32,310,000.00) (95,724,615.67)
(24,825,476.94)
36,447,756.82
94,124,996.17
149,105,774.02
(8,077,500.00)
(23,931,153.92)
(6,206,369.23)
9,111,939.20
23,531,249.04
37,276,443.50
(8,077,500.00)
(32,008,653.92)
(38,215,023.15)
(29,103,083.95)
(5,571,834.90)
31,704,608.60
31704608.6
8
305,339,447.76
76,334,861.94
222,097,178.00
222,097,178.00
9
356,613,517.76
10
408,387,959.78
89,153,379.44
102,096,989.95
11
12
13
461,139,697.64 515,315,956.14 571,342,231.90
14
629,629,386.87
15
690,580,026.09
115,284,924.41 128,828,989.03 142,835,557.97
157,407,346.72
172,645,006.52

101
2014/15

Annex 7.6
Revenue
Particulars
Price of Fertilizers
Price of Gas
Production
Gas ( Ltrs/day)
Fertilizers (Kgs/day)
Consumptions per Bus per day
No. of buses per day
No. of days in a year
30.00
75.00
31.50
78.75
33.08
82.69
34.73
86.82
36.47
91.16
3,640.00
30,000.00
41.00
88.78
365.00
328,500,000.00
99,645,000.00
3,640.00
30,000.00
41.00
88.78
365.00
344,925,000.00
104,627,250.00
3,640.00
30,000.00
41.00
88.78
365.00
362,171,250.00
109,858,612.50
3,640.00
30,000.00
41.00
88.78
365.00
380,279,812.50
115,351,543.13
3,640.00
30,000.00
41.00
88.78
365.00
399,293,803.13
121,119,120.28
6
38.29
95.72
7
40.20
100.51
8
42.21
105.53
9
44.32
110.81
10
46.54
116.35
3,640.00
30,000.00
41.00
88.78
365.00
419,258,493.28
127,175,076.30
3,640.00
30,000.00
41.00
88.78
365.00
440,221,417.95
133,533,830.11
3,640.00
30,000.00
41.00
88.78
365.00
462,232,488.84
140,210,521.62
3,640.00
30,000.00
41.00
88.78
365.00
485,344,113.28
147,221,047.70
3,640.00
30,000.00
41.00
88.78
365.00
509,611,318.95
154,582,100.08

102
2014/15

11
48.87
122.17
12
51.31
128.28
13
53.88
134.69
14
56.57
141.42
15
59.40
148.49
3,640.00
30,000.00
41.00
88.78
365.00
535,091,884.90
162,311,205.09
3,640.00
30,000.00
41.00
88.78
365.00
561,846,479.14
170,426,765.34
3,640.00
30,000.00
41.00
88.78
365.00
589,938,803.10
178,948,103.61
3,640.00
30,000.00
41.00
88.78
365.00
619,435,743.25
187,895,508.79
3,640.00
30,000.00
41.00
88.78
365.00
650,407,530.42
197,290,284.23

103
2014/15

Annex 7.7
Salary Sheet
Particulars
Manager (Engineer)
Supervisor
Skilled labors
Unskilled labors
Support Technicians( Electricians)
Total (A)
Manager
Supervisor
Skilled labors
Unskilled labors
Total (B)
Drivers
Total (C )
Total Salary and wages (A+B+C)
Nos
Monthly Salary
Sorting to CNG Unit

1.00
2.00
10.00
35.00
2.00
50.00
Fertilizer Unit
1.00
1.00
5.00
8.00
15.00
Other Unit
3.00
Total Salary per

month
100,000.00
50,000.00
40,000.00
20,000.00
30,000.00
100,000.00
100,000.00
400,000.00
700,000.00
60,000.00
1,360,000.00
80,000.00
50,000.00
40,000.00
20,000.00
80,000.00
50,000.00
200,000.00
160,000.00
490,000.00
20,000.00
60,000.00
60,000.00
1,910,000.00
Annex 7.8
Maintenance Cost
Yearly Maintenance Cost
Eqv NPR
200,000.00
19,600,000.00

104
2014/15

Annex 7.9
Particulars
Principal
Interest
Annual Installements
1
58,461,233.23
185,745,846.27
244,207,079.50
2
64,307,356.56
179,899,722.94
244,207,079.50
3
70,738,092.21
173,468,987.29
244,207,079.50
4
77,811,901.43
166,395,178.07
244,207,079.50
Annual Installments
6
94,152,400.73
150,054,678.77
244,207,079.50
7
103,567,640.81
140,639,438.69
244,207,079.50
11
151,633,382.90
92,573,696.60
244,207,079.50
12
166,796,721.19
77,410,358.31
244,207,079.50
8
113,924,404.89
130,282,674.61
244,207,079.50
13
183,476,393.31
60,730,686.19
244,207,079.50
9
125,316,845.37
118,890,234.13
244,207,079.50
14
201,824,032.64
42,383,046.86
244,207,079.50
10
137,848,529.91
106,358,549.59
244,207,079.50
15
222,006,435.91
22,200,643.59
244,207,079.50

105
5
85,593,091.57
158,613,987.93
244,207,079.50
2014/15
Annex 7.10
System Cost Breakdown
Particulars
Waste Material Sorting System
Anaerobic Dry Fermentation System
Organic Fertilizer Processing System
Total Cost Of System
NPR Eqv
Amount
2,857,810.00
10,758,461.00
1,923,076.00
15,539,347.00
1,553,934,700.00
Annex 7.11
Frieght Cost
Freight
10,000,000.00
Annex 7.12
Total Conversion Cost
No of Buses
Conversion Cost Per Bus
Total Conversion Cost
88.78
100,000.00
8,878,048.78
Annex 7.13
Cost of Cylinders for Bio Gas Storage and Transportation
Requirement per Bus
No. of buses
Total No. of Cylinders
No. of Locations
Cylinders required
Cost of each Cylinders($600)
Total Cost of Cylinders
4.00
88.78
355.12
3.00
1,065.37
57,000.00
60,725,853.66

106
2014/15
Annex 7.14
Breakdown of Loan utilization

System Cost
Freight
Conversion Cost
Cost of Cylinders
Storage plant
Tank construction cost for Water
Boring Cost for water supply
Water Filtration plant
Waste water management System
Sewing machine for fertilizer bags
Vehicle Cost (20 lacs *3)
Bio Gas Generator Cost
Fertilizer Shed Construction cost
Office Setup cost
Staff Cost
Office running Cost
Electricity Cost
Lease Rental
Total bank Financing
1,553,934,700.00
10,000,000.00
8,878,048.78
60,725,853.66
5,000,000.00
750,000.00
500,000.00
1,500,000.00
5,000,000.00
500,000.00
6,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,500,000.00
1,000,000.00
24,830,000.00
5,000,000.00
500,000.00
900,000.00
1,080,000.00
1,688,598,602.44
Interest Capitalised during Garce period of 1 year

Total Loan amount
168,859,860.24
1,857,458,462.68

107
2014/15

Annex 7.15
Calculation of NPV
0
0
1
Particulars
Present Value factor
Present Value of CF
NPV
1
1
119,586,420.50
0.909090909
2
2
143,573,595.50
0.826446281
1,342,467,533.53
5
174,718,909.55
0.620921323
108,486,696.48
6
147,252,754.83
0.56447393
83,120,341.23
7
107,973,213.35
0.513158118
55,407,330.98
8
57,082,981.85
0.46650738
26,629,632.32
9
216,743,642.38
0.424097618
91,920,462.53
11
248,120,142.79
0.350493899
86,964,596.39
12
265,504,185.50
0.318630818
84,597,815.73
13
283,972,129.27
0.28966438
82,256,610.69
14
303,498,578.86
0.263331254
79,920,661.45
15
324,064,069.31
0.239392049
77,578,361.68
10
231,852,736.94
0.385543289
89,389,266.86

108
3
3
163,510,129.25
0.751314801
4
4
184,443,489.69
0.683013455
2014/15

Annex 7.16
Calculation of ROI
Particulars
Earning before Tax
Interest
Earning before interest and tax
0
(32,310,000.00)
(32,310,000.00)
Cumulative earning before intrest and tax

Total Investment
ROI (annual)
6,327,045,217.98
1,857,458,462.68
22.70861088
1
(95,724,615.67)
185,745,846.27
90,021,230.60
5
149,105,774.02
158,613,987.93
307,719,761.94
6
202,180,738.41
150,054,678.77
352,235,417.18
7
254,050,091.41
140,639,438.69
394,689,530.11
8
305,339,447.76
130,282,674.61
435,622,122.37
9
356,613,517.76
118,890,234.13
475,503,751.89
11
461,139,697.64
92,573,696.60
553,713,394.24
12
515,315,956.14
77,410,358.31
592,726,314.44
13
571,342,231.90
60,730,686.19
632,072,918.09
14
629,629,386.87
42,383,046.86
672,012,433.72
15
690,580,026.09
22,200,643.59
712,780,669.68
2
(24,825,476.94)
179,899,722.94
155,074,246.01
10
408,387,959.78
106,358,549.59
514,746,509.37

109
3
36,447,756.82
173,468,987.29
209,916,744.11
4
94,124,996.17
166,395,178.07
260,520,174.24

Biogas For Transport Vehicles Final Report

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Biogas For Transport Vehicles Final Report

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Government of Nepal

Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment

Alternative Energy Promotion Centre

Feseaibility Study of Usage of Biogas in

One Planet Solution Pvt. Ltd.

ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS

Alternative Energy Promotion Centre

Objective of Study ............................................................................................................... 2

Scope of work ...................................................................................................................... 2

Study Area ........................................................................................................................... 4

Kathmandu Metropolitan City .................................................................................. 6

Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City ................................................................................ 7

Bhaktapur Municipality ............................................................................................ 8

Kirtipur Municipality ................................................................................................ 8

2.1.6. Table: Comparison of Waste in 5 Municipalities of Kathmandu Valley (based on

Kalimati Fruit and Vegetable Market ....................................................................... 9

Methodology Adopted ....................................................................................................... 10

Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 11

Waste Characterization and Quantification ............................................................ 11

Laboratory Analysis ................................................................................................ 12

Data Compilation and Analysis .............................................................................. 13

Calculation of Biogas Potential .............................................................................. 14

Finance and Institutional ......................................................................................... 15

Results and Discussion .................................................................................. 16

Quantification of Waste ..................................................................................................... 16

Composition of waste ........................................................................................................ 16

Chemical parameters .......................................................................................................... 17

Estimation of biogas potential ........................................................................................... 18

Suitable Technology for Piloting of Biogas usage in Transport Vehicles ......................... 19

Stage 2: Use the organic fraction and produce Biogas ......................................................... 20

Biogas cleaning and upgrading .......................................................................................... 25

Business Case of the Biogas and Fertilizer Production: .................................................... 28

Capital Requirement: .............................................................................................. 29

Operating Cost: ....................................................................................................... 29

Other Assumptions: ................................................................................................ 30

Business Case: ........................................................................................................ 30

Scenario #1 Base Scenario (Normal Prices): .................................................................. 31

Scenario #2 Full Benefits Scenario ................................................................................. 31

Scenario #3 Clean Fuel at a Premium - Safaa Tempo Scenario: ................................ 31

Scenario #4 Aggressive Pricing Scenario: .................................................................. 31

External Benefits and Costs of Waste-to-CNG for Transport........................................ 33

Positive Secondary Impacts and Externalities of Biogas: ................................... 34

Institutional Capacity of Sajha Yatayat .......................................................................... 37

Profile and Role of Sajha Yatayat ....................................................................... 37

Sajha YatayatGrowth Strategy .......................................................................... 38

Interview with Gopal Prasad Pant (accountant) .................................................. 38

Summary of Sajhas Institutional Capacity......................................................... 39

Conclusion and Recommendations .............................................................. 41

ANNEX 1 QUANTIFICATION OF WASTE .......................................................................... 45

ANNEX 4 WASTE FLOW PATTERN IN MUNICIPALITIES OF KATHMANDU

Feasibility Study of Usage of Biogas in Transport Vehicles

Production of waste materials is an unavoidable part of human society. Disposal of municipal

Alternative Energy Promotion Center

One Planet Solution Pvt.Ltd.

Feasibility Study of Usage of Biogas in Transport Vehicles

The scope of work is:

Quantification of the waste production in each 5 municipality within Kathmandu Valley.

Alternative Energy Promotion Center

One Planet Solution Pvt.Ltd.

Feasibility Study of Usage of Biogas in Transport Vehicles

The data has to be collected in association with the respective municipality.

Determination of resource availability.

To recommend appropriate biogas fuel storage systems.