Laporkan Masalah

KAJIAN SUSTAINABILITAS BIOGAS POWER PLANT: STUDI KASUS BIOGAS POWER PLANT PASAR GEMAH RIPAH, GAMPING, SLEMAN, YOGYAKARTA

FAJAR MARENDRA, Ir. Agus Prasetya, M.Eng.Sc., PhD.; Dr-Ing. Teguh Ariyanto, S.T., M.Eng.

2018 | Tesis | MAGISTER ILMU LINGKUNGAN

Teknologi biogas power plant dengan anaerobic digestion untuk pengelolaan dan pengolahan limbah organik merupakan teknologi yang menjanjikan. Meskipun demikian, kajian komprehensif sustainabilitas (enviro-socio-economic) teknologi biogas power plant masih jarang dilakukan. Sebagian besar peneliti hanya berfokus pada kajian ekonomi atau kajian lingkungan saja. Kajian ini bertujuan untuk menyusun metode evaluasi komprehensif sustainabilitas teknologi anaerobic digestion pada biogas power plant dan melakukan kajian sustainabilitas menggunakan metode yang telah disusun terhadap Biogas Power Plant Gemah Ripah (BPG), Gamping, Sleman, Yogyakarta Dalam kajian ini, life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) yang mengintegrasikan life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing (LCC) dan societal life cycle assessment (SLCA) dilakukan pada biogas power plant yang berlokasi di Pasar Pusat Buah Gemah Ripah di Gamping, Sleman, Yogyakarta. Berdasarkan kajian ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa susunan langkah-langkah metode evaluasi komprehensif biogas power plant adalah i) penentuan goal and scope kajian, ii) analisis inventori data (lingkungan, ekonomi, dan sosial), iii) penilaian dampak yang ditimbulkan (lingkungan, ekonomi, sosial), iv) penentuan criteria and grade of index evaluation, v) penentuan weight of the evaluation-index system, vi) perhitungan nilai sustainabilitas biogas power plant dan vii) intepretasi yang kemudian dapat diaplikasikan langsung pada biogas power plan tterkait hal-hal yang berhubungan dengan penentuan pengembangan dan perbaikan produk/proses, penyusunan strategi dan perencanaan, penentuan kebijakan-kebijakan dan lain sebagainya. Kajian ini juga menyimpulkan bahwa BPG dengan kapasitas terpasang 4 ton sampah/hari dan beroperasi rutin pada 0,3 ton sampah/hari, menghasilkan Global Warming Potential (GWP) sebesar 81,95 Kg CO2eq/ton sampah dan acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), HTPinf (human toxicity potential) dan FAETPinf (fresh water ecotoxicity) emissions yang rendah. BPG membutuhkan biaya investasi dan operasional sebesar 1,1 juta rupiah/ton sampah dengan nilai penjualan mencapai 0,04 juta rupiah/ton sampah dan persentasi untung terhadap biaya sebesar 0%. BPG memberikan dampak sosial kepada tiga stakeholder yaitu worker, consumer dan local community dengan nilai secara berurutan sebesar 7, 1 dan 5. Hasil penilaian terhadap kondisi BPG terhadap manfaat lingkungan, ekonomi dan sosial secara berurutan ialah 5,00, 1,16, dan 4,00. Dengan grade sustainabilitas (nilai/standar) I(5/sangat baik), II(4/baik), III(3/moderat), IV(2/jelek), V(1/sangat jelek) dan bobot masing-masing manfaat lingkungan, ekonomi dan sosial secara berurutan 0,395, 0,291, dan 0,314, maka grade sustainabilitas dari BPG ialah Grade II/4/ kategori Baik. BPG merupakan program yang lebih ramah lingkungan dan memberikan manfaat sosial yang signifikan meskipun masih lemah secara ekonomi

Biogas power plant with anaerobic digestion for the management and processing of organic waste is promising technology. However, to date, only few researches have studied on a comprehensive sustainability assessment (environ-socio-economic benefits) of biogas power plant technology. Most researches have focused on a single aspect of environment or economic. This study aims to develop a comprehensive evaluation method of sustainability of anaerobic digestion technology in biogas power plant and conduct sustainability study using methods that have been compiled against Biogas Power Plant Gemah Ripah (BPG), Gamping, Sleman, Yogyakarta In this study, the life cycle, life cycle costing and societal life cycle assessment which integrated on life cycle sustainability assesment were carried out in a fruit waste biogas power plant system located in the Gemah Ripah Central Fruit Market in Gamping, Sleman, Yogyakarta . Based on this study, it proposed that the stages of comprehensive biogas power plant evaluation methods are i) determining the goal and scope of the study, ii) inventory analysis of data (environment, economy, and social), iii) impact assessment (environmental, economic, and social), iv) determining criteria and grade of index evaluation, v) determining the weight of the evaluation-index system, vi) calculating the sustainability value of biogas power plant and vii) interpretation which can then be applied directly to the biogas power plant to determining of development and improvement of product/process, determining of strategy and planning, determining of policies and so forth. The study also concludes that the BPG with installed capacity of 4 tons of waste/day (right now, routine feeds of 0.3 tons of waste/day) generates Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 81.95 kg CO2eq/ton of waste and acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), HTPinf (human toxicity potential) and FAETPinf (fresh water ecotoxicity) emissions were low. BPG requires investment and operational cost of 1.1 million rupiah/ton of waste with sales value reaching 0.04 million rupiah/ton of waste and profit percentage to the cost of 0%. BPG provides social impacts to three stakeholders i. e. worker, consumer and local community with consecutive values of 7, 1 and 5. The assessment results of BPG conditions on environmental, economic and social benefits are 5.00, 1.16, and 4,00. With the degree of sustainability (values / standard) I (5 / very good), II (4 / good), III (3 / moderate), IV (2/bad), V (1/very bad) and the weight of each environmental, economic and social benefit respectively 0.395, 0.291, and 0.314, the sustainability grade of BPG is Grade II/4/Good category. The BPG is a system providing environmentally friendly program, significant social benefits but still economically weak.

Kata Kunci : Limbah buah, LCA, LCC, SLCA, LCSA

  1. S2-2018-404991-abstract.pdf  
  2. S2-2018-404991-bibliography.pdf  
  3. S2-2018-404991-tableofcontent.pdf  
  4. S2-2018-404991-title.pdf