Woodgas and electricity .1 The value chain

The bush-to-woodgas value chain in Namibia is still in the experimental phase. Funded by an EU anti-poverty-programme grant, the local DRFN has initiated the CBEND pilot project for producing electricity from bush.

Potential independent producers have been identified; during our research stay, the tender for the gasifier was being reviewed. The project aims to transform the problem of bush encroachment into an economic opportunity, test the viability of producing electricity from bush while rehabilitating rangeland, and create employment for the unskilled rural labour force.

The project thus corresponds to several national goals (see Chapter 3) and propositions from research on bush encroachment and rural development.

The full business model is currently being developed. The plan for each site so far is to manually chop the bush and each week feed about 50 tonnes of dry, chipped woody biomass into a 250-KW-electricity generator.

Harvest methods that create bush-regrowth rates of five to eight years are being propagated to ensure the power plant’s reliance on the local long-term provision of bush without the need to move the generator after some years (Hager, n.d.). Ultimately, many independent power generators will be built.

The gasifiers will produce electricity non-stop (Int. DRFN), meaning that a connection is needed to feed it into the national grid. Such a gasifier would be a major part of an enterprise to produce electricity from bush, separating debushing and charcoal/electricity production to two independent entrepreneurs seems to be unfeasible under Namibian conditions. Investment costs are considerable as well as managerial requirements to organize the wood supply. It could also be working alongside charcoal production – thereby diversifying income and risk. It is unlikely that a farmer’s own land could supply enough biomass for an electricity production plant, even less for a combined electricity/charcoal production, so additional bush would have to be bought.

4.3.2.2 Major factors in viability

There are still a few technical questions to be solved (at the time of our study; in 2013 a study (STEAG, 2013) confirmed the feasibility of the concept and the technology, yet in 2015 more feasibility studies were announced, Namibia Economist, 2015). According to Hager et al. (2008), the gas obtained could be burnt but not used in the combustion engines that power turbines because as it cools it produces condensation water and tars that clog piping and combustion chambers. Other challenges in the gasification process come from the various moisture contents of the different types of bush. The higher the moisture content, the more vapours accumulate, exacerbating the tarring problem. While using charcoal instead of bush biomass could abate the tarring problem bush is much more energy efficient than charcoal (see Chapter 4.2). Possible solutions include a drying process to lower the moisture content in the woody shrubs and procedures to reduce the production and/or effect of tars.

Interviewees expressed doubts about local technical and managerial know-how to run a gasifier plant: there is little expertise on the subject in Namibia and it is especially difficult to attract experts to a rural environment. On the other hand, there is a new generation of young Namibian professionals and not enough formal jobs for them in urban areas. The demand for multifaceted practical know-how and theoretically oriented skilled labour and managers risk being mismatched, however. If commercial farmers with skills and experience in managing rural workers and bushland are to run the units, there will have to be a trade-off between farming capacities and the time needed to manage a gasifier plant. Operating a gasifier could

well be a full-time job, meaning that the operator would have less time for cattle farming, thereby contradicting the original goal of enhancing cattle production. Development cooperation and enterprise support from local governments do not suffice to train, service, and possibly finance farmers to run larger businesses.

The challenges for the production and harvesting processes are similar to those described for the charcoal value chain. Since the technology and size of the individual units require a minimum amount of debushing, formal worker arrangements, standardization and mechanization are likely to be needed, so it will also be necessary to develop skills. If the model proves viable and entrepreneurs and skilled managers are found, there might be greater demand for training low-skilled workers to use debushing machinery.

However, since some farmers do not want masses of workers on their land (see Chapter 4.3.1), it might be difficult in some locations to secure the minimum amount of bushland around the plant.

The most crucial factor in terms of the output market’s economic viability is an appropriate feed-in tariff. The NamPower feed-in tariff is NAD 0.11 per KWh (see Chapter 3.3). An independent power provider, such as a gasification plant, could sell electricity to NamPower or a regional energy distributor (Int. ECB). While the relevant feed-in tariffs for the pilot project have not yet been officially agreed, there are indications that the basis for negotiation will be about four times higher than NamPower’s current tariff. Tariffs from six to eight times higher are needed to make the production of renewable energy viable in Namibia according to one interview (Int. REEEI). To replicate the project, the revenue must cover the cost of commercial investments. Not only are tariffs crucial but the financial base of an independent power provider must also be stronger and more stable than that of a subsidized project. Calculations for the CBEND project show it breaking even after 13 years only, quite long for an agro-business investment (Int. DRFN). If the successfully scaled-up production makes bush a valuable resource, triggering a rise in debushing and feedstock prices, the original cost calculations will be too low and, again, higher output (electricity) prices are required to maintain profitability.

4.3.2.3 Developmental effects

The economic, sociopolitical and ecological effects and the effects on food security would resemble those described in the charcoal business model.

One major difference could be that there would be no immediate risk of environmentally harmful tree cutting since unlike charcoal, large pieces of wood are a problem for chippers. Thus, the technology protects to a certain degree against this risk.

4.3.3 Woodfuel briquettes (‘Bushblok’)