| dc.description.abstract | Due to the rising energy needs and environmental concerns, biomass briquettes have been pointed out as a potential supplementary and/or energy substitute for traditional wood fuel in most developing regions. However, briquettes uptake in Uganda has continued to be low thus limiting a transition from solid wood fuel. This study investigated socioeconomic and technical aspects of briquettes that may influence an energy transition. The study focused on four objectives; (i) to assess biomass waste and densification technologies used in briquette production, (ii) to evaluate energy content, thermal efficiency and combustion quality of selected biomass waste derived- briquettes on market in Kampala, (iii) to analyse consumers’ perception and willingness to uptake briquettes as source of fuel, and (iv) to investigate the existing gaps in briquette technology adoption, product marketing and scale-up of briquettes as an alternative energy source for households and SMEs. Face to face interviews, Key Informative Interviews and Focus Group Discussion were used as methods of data collection for objective one, three and four. On the hand, laboratory data collection sheets were used for objective two. The targeted population was reached out using snowball and purposive sampling for objective one, three and four while simple random sampling was used to select fuel samples for quality testing. A total of 238 respondents were sampled. Descriptive statistics, Chi Square and PCA were used to analyse objectives one and three; Proximate analysis, TGA, and ANOVA were used to analyse objective three while objective four was analysed using descriptives. It was discovered that banana peels, cassava peels, potato peels and charcoal fines are most commonly used agricultural wastes in the production of carbonized briquettes while saw dust and ground nut husks are commonly used in production of non-carbonized briquettes; clay (72.4%), cassava flour (41%), molasses (22%) are most commonly used as binders in briquette production. Majority of briquette producers (46.2%) use manual mechanized technologies while 30.7% use powered mechanized technologies and only 23.1% use both powered mechanized and manual mechanized technologies. PCA test results confirmed that affordability, availability, reliability and densification capacity were the key determinants of technology choice by briquette producers. Briquettes on market had high average ash content (41%), poor ignition (25 minutes) and low burring rate (11g/minute) compared to wood-derived charcoal. However, results showed that calorific values, burning rate, time taken to boil water for briquettes and wood-derived charcoal were averagely comparable with (17799KJ/Kg), (11g/minute), (35 minutes) and (29318KJ/Kg), (7g/minute), and (26 minutes) respectively. The majority (97%) of consumers had a negative perception towards briquettes largely attributed to the poor-quality attributes of the briquettes delivered on the market in aspects of poor ignition, high ash content, difficulty in heat regulation by users and low thermal efficiency. On the market and supply side, there is still lack of welldeveloped supply chain for biomass, difficulty in equipment procurement due to the high importation cost of briquette machines and poor standardization of product prices. The key gaps that are hindering briquette technology adoption and scale up of the briquette industry were; consumers’ ignorance about the potential fuel savings as well as consumers’ inherence to change cooking practices. It is recommended that producers should opt for alternative binders and BMF that are sustainable and renewable for example cassava flour and molasses other than clay. There is also need for UNBS to create standard production protocols and regularly monitor and enforce compliance of the producers with national quality standards for briquette production. Additionally, there should be training and capacity building of producers done through conducting regular workshops and training sessions by MEMD and academicians. | en_US |
