Being Creatively Resourceful with Poo– Fertilizer or Energy?

by Prasad Dietrich-Wielenga 10-15Nov2009

Introduction:

Some of the main problems with the modern sewerage system as a means of disposing faecal
material is that it uses large quantities of precious waster merely as a transport medium to convey
poo from the source to the treatment plants (where primary treatment ironically is to separate the
solids from the liquids) and it is common for domestic waste water and industrial waste water and
surface runoff, to all get channelled into one common sewerage system.

In the case of the former, its estimated that in the UK alone about 2 billion litres of fresh water is
used for flushing every day (Waterwise). If the whole world were to adopt such a system, incredibly
huge quantities of water would be required to flush the approximately 1.5 million tonnes of
excrement generated by todays world population (Jenkins, 2005). Quite likely not to be sustainable
in the long run, given the other needs for water.

A consequence of the later is that the resultant sewage is usually a concoction of industrial
chemicals, oil, grease, dioxins, pathogenic organisms, industrial solvents, heavy metals, etc, which
complicates the treatment process and the reclamation of essential soil nutrients from organic faecal
matter (Jenkins, 2005).

In green circles, it is widely accepted that poo is a valuable resource and not a waste material
(Eg.Grant et al, 2005). This essay aims to explore if poo is better used as a fertiliser or in energy
production, in terms of efficiency of processes, impact on environment, economics of scale, etc.

This essay is relevant to the Water supply and Sewage treatment lectures by Judith Thornton, in
that it deals with the question of ecological impact of sanitation.

Energy from Poo:

The idea and practice of generating energy in the form of biogas through the anaerobic digestion
(AD) of animal waste and plant matter has been around since ages. But, it is not exactly known
when human faecal material was first used as part of the feedstock in an anaerobic digester.
However, today there are successful examples of it in India (Khan, 2008), China (FAO/CMS, 1996),
Vancouver (McDermott, 2008) and Rwanda (Farivar, 2005).

Technical feasibility: Technically biogas can be produced from any organic decaying material.
However, a Carbon/Nitrogen ratio ranging from 20 to 301, a dilution range of 1:1 to 1:22 on a unit
volume basis with water (FAO/CMS, 1996), a pH range from 6.8-7.2 and a temperature range of 30-
60oC (Yadvika et al., 2004) is considered ideal. Human faecal material has a C/N ratio of 8 (ref
Table.1), but can be mixed with any other organic material with a high C/N ratio such as straw, as is
done in China, to achieve the desired ratio (FAO/CMS, 1996). Dilution with water will need to be

1
With higher C/N ratio, the nitrogen will sufficiently provide for the protein requirements of the bacteria in the digester, and the left over
carbon material will not be sufficiently processed.
2
Dilution should be made to maintain the solids at 7-10 percent. If the mix is too dilute, the solids will settle at the bottom and if it is too
thick, it impedes the flow of gas at the lower layers.

Prasad Dietrich Wielenga e-mail:prasadjdw@gmail.com Page 1 of 7

monitored and controlled. The pH can be controlled by feeding the digester at an optimum loading
rate (Yadvika et al., 2004).

Types of Dung Gas Production Per

Raw Materials C/N Raw Materials C/N
Kg Dung (m3)
Ratio Ratio
Cattle (cows and 0.023 - 0.040
Duck dung 8 Water hyacinth 25
buffaloes)
Human excreta 8 Elephant dung 43 Pig 0.040 - 0.059
Chicken dung 10 Straw (maize) 60 Poultry (Chickens) 0.065 - 0.116
Goat dung 12 Straw (rice) 70 Human 0.020 - 0.028
Pig dung 18 Straw (wheat) 90

Sheep dung 19 Saw dust 200

above
Cow dung/ Buffalo 24
dung

Table 2. Gas Production potential of various types of dung

Table 1: C/N Ratio of some organic materials

Biomethanisation, or the production of methane through AD, is generally low or slower at

psychrophilic (low - below 30oC) temperatures (Kashyap et al, 2003). According to a study by Singh
et al (1995) on human excreta based feedstock at psychrophilic temperatures, the hydraulic
retention time (HRT) affects the variation of concentration of volatile fatty acids in the feedstock and
a shorter HRT tends to render the feedstock toxic for the bacteria feeding on it. However, research
suggests that increasing the temperature of the digester using excess biogas that is generated
(Sutter et al, 1987) or using solar hot water in preparing the feedstock (Tiwari, 1986), can help
overcome this problem.

Energy Content and Potential: Biogas primarily consists of 50-70% methane, 30-40% of co2 and
traces of hydrogen sulphide and water wapour (FAO/CMS, 1996). The volume of gas generated per
unit volume of feedstock varies with the type of feedstock. Human faeces alone does not have a
huge potential for biogas generation (ref Table.2), but it can be mixed with other organic materials
that have a higher potential for gas production. Furthermore biogas production can be enhanced by
controlling and adjusting a number of operational parameters and also use of additives etc (Yadvika
et al., 2004).

Biogas has a calorific value of 6KWh/m3, approximately equivalent to half a litre of diesel oil
(Kashyap et al, 2003). However, it can be upgraded to natural gas quality by removing the
carbondioxide and hydrogen sulphide (Holm-Nielsen et al, 2009). As part of fulfilling EU’s energy
policy of 20% energy from renewables by 2020, it is estimated that biogas from organic matter such
as animal manure, whole crop silages, wet food and feed wastes can provide upto 25% of the
energy from renewable energy systems (Holm-Nielsen et al, 2009). Given the enormous amounts of
excreta generated per annum, perhaps the contribution from biogas can be further increased.

Environmental Impact: Anaerobic digestion of organic wastes (excreta included) is considered

beneficial to the environment as it not only takes care of treatment of waste, but also helps in
generating energy. Though the application of biogas slurry using animal manure on land for

Prasad Dietrich Wielenga e-mail:prasadjdw@gmail.com Page 2 of 7

agricultural purposes is considered safe and beneficial (Garg et al., 2005), further research will be
needed to say the same of biogas slurry using human excreta and also on the emissions from such
an application. In developing countries, biogas as a cleaner fuel, has the potential to reduce
pollution from the burning of other biomass fuels, traditionally used for cooking (Kashyap et al,
2003).

Applications: Biogas can be used as such or upgraded for a number of applications. When used as
such its use is rather limited close to the source, while when upgraded to natural gas quality it can
be injected into the natural gas grid (Kristensson et al., 2007) or compressed in cylinders (Kapdi, S.
et al., 2005) and used where required. It can also be used in CHPs for electricity generation (Holm-
Nielsen et al, 2009) or as transport fuel as is popularly used in Sweden (Persson et al., 2006).

ERoEI: Studying the energy balance of biogas

Fig.1: The energy input/output ratio from digestion of
various types of raw materials. (The transport distance
between the location of the raw materials and the biogas
plant is 10 km.)
systems is very complex owing to the variety of
raw materials that can be used in the feedstock
(sometimes in combination), the different
techniques of digestions and again varied
application of the generated biogas and residual
slurry. A study on Swedish biogas systems
based on different raw materials (human excreta
not included) indicates that on the whole, the
total primary energy input corresponds to about
20-40% of the total energy content of the biogas
produced (ref Fig.1) (Berglund et al, 2006). Given
the similarities, it can be safely assumed that in
the case of human excreta, it will not fall outside
this range.

Economics of Scale: A Danish government study concluded that large scale biogas plants could be
profitable if (i) they operated in CHP mode (ii) selling price of biogas is comparable to natural gas
and (iii) credit is given for disposal of other wastes. Most biogas schemes in developing countries
are smaller in scale and heavily depend on government subsidy on capital costs (Boyle, 2004).

Composting Poo:

The practice of recycling human excreta has been around for centuries, especially in parts of Asia.
However, the concept of properly composting and converting it into nutrient rich humus is rather
recent. Rybczynski et al (1982) states that composting poo was first introduced in China around the
1930’s and in Vietnam in the 1950’s. Commercial compost toilets were introduced into the markets
in Scandinavia in the 1960’s and 70’s (Jenkins, 2005).

Technical Feasibility: The most crucial factors in composting poo are an optimum C/N ratio, which
needs to be between 20 and 35 and ample oxygen. The temperature may vary depending on
whether it is mesophilic3 or thermophilic4 composting. Freezing temperatures however do not aid any
kind of composting. The moisture content may also vary depending on whether it is dry composting
or not. Moist composting will require a moisture level of 50-60% (Jenkins, 2005).
3
Below core body temperature
4
Around 55-60oC

Prasad Dietrich Wielenga e-mail:prasadjdw@gmail.com Page 3 of 7

Environmental Impact: It is estimated that in a conventional sewage system to which flush toilets are
connected, about 1000 to 2000 tons of water is required to flush one ton of human excreta (Jenkins,
2005). But all of this is not fresh water, as modern sewage systems integrate toilet waste, grey water
and storm water. In spite of that, a household composting toilet can help save enormous quantities
of fresh water.

The benefits and safety aspects of using composted faeces in agriculture is well documented (Eg.
Heinonen-Tanski et al, 2005) It was estimated that in the year 2000, about 45 million metric tonnes
worth of agro-nutrients (Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Potassium) was ‘recoverable’ from the total of
(about) 3000 million metric tonnes of humanure ‘generated’ that year (Jenkins, 2005). That amounts
to about one third of total (approx 135 million tonnes) fertilizers consumed that year (FAO, 2003).
The potential climate change impact of composted faeces as a low carbon (emissions) fertilizer
substitute, in terms of reduced emissions can be huge.

Apart from the recoverable agro-nutrients, research suggests that it is common to find traces of
heavy metals such as lead, cadmium and nickel (Schouw et at, 2002) and traces of prescribed
medicinal drugs (Raloff,1998) in faecal material, which may enter the food chain when sewage
sludge is used for agricultural purposes. Composting (thermophilic) on the other hand is said to
breakdown heavy metals into benign materials (Jenkins, 2005).

The impact of using carbonaceous cover material for the compost heaps may be considered
negligible, as any kind of organic material, such as saw dust, peat moss, rice hulls, leaf mould etc,
may be used depending on availability. There is insufficient data on methane emissions during the
composting process. As a result it is uncertain if there is a net reduction in methane emissions in
terms of what otherwise would have been generated in landfills.

LCA: A life cycle assessment of an ecological sanitation system for an office building in Luxemburg
that included gravity separation toilets, waterless urinals, rainwater for flushing, composting of
faeces (not on site), waste water treatment and recycling showed that such a system had a reduced
impact in terms of ecosystem quality damage, but the impact on climate change, in terms of
emission from transportation of urine and faeces to composting unit, was more compared to
conventional sewage treatment system, if the transport distances were not limited within 20 to 40
Kms (Benetto et al, 2009).

Economics of Scale: Composting of faecal material has so far been carried out mostly by
environmentally concerned individuals, on a small (family) scale, more as an act of reducing
damage to ecosystems. Very little data is available on the economic viability and environmental
impacts of larger in scale composting facilities.

Conclusion:

Given the level of soil nutrients, energy potential of excreta and the lower ecological damage by
anaerobic digestion and composting compared to conventional sewage treatment, it would be a folly
to continue treating excreta as a waste rather than a resource. Between the two options of energy
and soil resource, for a given volume of excrement, owing to lack of sufficient data, it would be
difficult to indicate which is a better option in terms of environmental impact over the entire life cycle
and/or emissions etc. In most cases, the options will probably be determined by the context - lack of
water, need for energy or fertilizer, infrastructure needed, socio-cultural acceptability, economic
viability, etc. Given the present trends of water consumption the world over (Meadows et al, 2004) it

Prasad Dietrich Wielenga e-mail:prasadjdw@gmail.com Page 4 of 7

should come as no surprise that the lack of availability of water, will be a crucial factor that will
determine the future course of even ecological sanitation systems.

Limitations: This essay is limited by brevity and lack of sufficient data in specific areas. As
mentioned, data was insufficient to make a comparative analysis of implications and impact of
composting and biogas generation of a given quantity of excreta, say one tonne. The role and
impact of urine in both the processes could also not be analysed in detail. Owing to brevity, it was
possible to look at only biogas systems in detail and not any other systems. The practical, social and
economic viability of changing the present system and adapting any of alternatives could also not be
further explored.

Implications for current Orthodoxy: Except for a few exceptions, the general deep-rooted attitude of
the modern world towards excreta is that of a unhygienic and may be even dangerous waste, that
immediately needs to be disposed of, for somebody else or the environment to deal with. More than
a collective herculean effort based on scientific evidence and practical experience will be needed to
bring about a turnaround in such an attitude. The environmental and health implications of
continuing with the present system or adapting ecological sanitation are simply monumental.

Further research: It would be useful and interesting to find out the amount of emissions of gases
such as methane, during the composting process. Research to quantify the biogas generation
potential of excreta in combination with various organic materials that are required for balancing the
C/N ratio will also help to increase the efficiency of such systems. Research into other systems of
energy generation from excreta would also be beneficial. For example, it is suggested that sewage
can substitute water as a cooling agent in nuclear reactors, with the intense radiation converting the
organic matter into hydrogen as an additional benefit (Baker, 2009).

Note: This essay was written as part of the coursework for the authors Masters program.

Prasad Dietrich Wielenga e-mail:prasadjdw@gmail.com Page 5 of 7

References:

Baker, D. Response to article: Ontario Unveils Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009. (Feb
2009) Available at: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea//news/article/2009/02/ontario-
unveils-green-energy-and-green-economy-act-2009 Accessed December 04, 2009.

Benetto, E. et al., 2009. Life cycle assessment of ecological sanitation system for small-scale
wastewater treatment. Science of The Total Environment, 407(5), 1506-1516.

Berglund, M. & Börjesson, P., 2006. Assessment of energy performance in the life-cycle of biogas
production. Biomass and Bioenergy, 30(3), 254-266.

Boyle, G., ed. 2004. Renewable Energy. Power for a Sustainable Future. 2nd Ed. UK: Oxford
University Press, 2004. p129, 130.

FAO/CMS. 1996. Environment : A system approach to biogas technology. Available at:

http://www.fao.org/sd/Egdirect/EGre0022.htm Accessed December 30, 2009.

FAO, 2003. Current World Fertilizer Trends and Outlook to 2007/2008. Avaliable at:
ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/docs/cwfto07.pdf Accessed January 03, 2010.

Farivar.C., 2005. Human Feces Powers Rwandan Prison. Available at:

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/07/68127 Accessed December 30, 2009.

Garg, R.N. et al., 2005. Use of Flyash and Biogas Slurry for Improving Wheat Yield and Physical
Properties of Soil. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 107(1), 1-9.

Grant, N.J., Moodie, M.J.H. & Weedon, C., 2008. Sewage Solutions: Answering the Call of Nature
3rd ed., Machynlleth: Centre for Alternative Technology Publications, 2008.

Heinonen-Tanski, H. & van Wijk-Sijbesma, C., 2005. Human excreta for plant production.
Bioresource Technology, 96(4), 403-411.

Holm-Nielsen, J., Al Seadi, T. & Oleskowicz-Popiel, P., 2009. The future of anaerobic digestion and
biogas utilization. Bioresource Technology, 100(22), 5478-5484.

Jenkins, J., 2005. The Humanure Handbook. A Guide to Composting Human Manure. 3rd ed., Grove
City (USA): Joseph Jenkins, Inc., 2005. p14, 30, 100, 101, 114.

Kapdi, S. et al., 2005. Biogas scrubbing, compression and storage: perspective and prospectus in
Indian context. Renewable Energy, 30(8), 1195-1202.

Kashyap, D.R., Dadhich, K.S. & Sharma, S.K., 2003. Biomethanation under psychrophilic
conditions: a review. Bioresource Technology, 87(2), 147-153.

Khan.J., 2008. Waste Not Want Not. Available at:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/26/news/international/kahn_biogas.fortune/index.htm Accessed
December 30, 2009.

Kristensson et al., 2007 Kristensson, I. et al., 2007. Biogas på gasnätet utan propantillsats. Rapport
SGC 176, 1102-7371, ISRN SGC-R-176-SE, pp. 6–18.

Prasad Dietrich Wielenga e-mail:prasadjdw@gmail.com Page 6 of 7

McDermott, M., 2008. Poo Power Expands: Vancouver-area Sewage Treatment Plant to Produce
Biogas : TreeHugger. Available at: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/vancouver-sewer-
treatment-plant-explores-human-waste-biogas.php Accessed December 31, 2009.

Meadows, D., Randers, J. and Meadows, D., 2004. Limits to Growth. The 30-Year Update. London:
Earthscan, 2004. p66-74.

Persson et al., 2006. Persson, M., Jönsson, O., Wellinger, A., 2006. Biogas upgrading to vehicle fuel
standards and grid injection. IEA Bioenergy, Task 37 – Energy from Biogas and Landfill Gas, 2006.

Raloff, J. Drugged Waters (March 1998) Available at:

http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/3_21_98/bob1.htm Accessed January 03, 2010.

Rybczynski et al, 1982. Low-cost technology options for sanitation: state of the literature. Journal of
Information Science. 5: 97-101.

Schouw, N.L. et al., 2002. Composition of human excreta -- a case study from Southern Thailand.
The Science of The Total Environment, 286(1-3), 155-166.

Singh et al., 1995. L. Singh, M.S. Maurya, K.V. Ramana and S.I. Alam , Production of biogas from
night soil at psychrophilic temperature. Bioresource Technol. 53 (1995), pp. 147–149.

Sutter et al., 1987. Sutter, K., Egger, K., Wellinger, A., 1987. Psychrophilic methane production: a
low rate but economically viable technique. In: Veziroglu, T.N. (Ed.), Alternate Energy Sources VII,
vol. IV. Hemisphere, Washington, pp. 87–98.

Tiwari, 1986. G.N. Tiwari , Transient analysis of a biogas system integrated with a solar waste
heater. Renew. Energy Rev. J. 8 (1986), pp. 67–73.

Waterwise: Toilet Flushing (at home). Available at:

http://www.waterwise.org.uk/reducing_water_wastage_in_the_uk/house_and_garden/toilet_flushing
_at_home.html Accessed December 29, 2009.

Yadvika et al., 2004. Enhancement of biogas production from solid substrates using different
techniques--a review. Bioresource Technology, 95(1), 1-10.

Prasad Dietrich Wielenga e-mail:prasadjdw@gmail.com Page 7 of 7