Biomass briquetting is usually an energy-intensive process. Large screw-type presses are used, and the end product has a high density that makes its manipulation easier. However, investment and operational costs for this type of process are far out of the reach of the poor.

Bearing this in mind CIDEM devised a system to attain low-pressure compaction with a simple hand press, similar to the one used to manufacture Earth-Compressed-Blocks. The disadvantage is that biomass must be previously mixed with a binder, in this case clay, in order to reach the desired density. The Solid Fuel Block is the end product.

This technology has been introduced in Cuba at pilot scale. There are currently two workshops in full operation at Villa Clara province; both of them are tapping the cooking fuels market at popular kitchens by replacing the scarce and ecologically unfriendly firewood. Also, there are some attempts to use the SFB to replace firewood in the manufacture of building materials, basically fired clay bricks and quicklime.

The present report describes the studies carried out to assess the impact of the technology in all stakeholders involved. The report will focus on the potential of the new product in the open market and sustainability of its manufacture in the local context.

2. Impact of the technology

2.1 Study of the biomass sources

As the project aims at implementation in urban and suburban areas, the main source of biomass available is sawdust –besides solid urban wastes-. Therefore most of the studies will focus in such material

2.1.1 Sawdust’s sources

The study shows that there is a great potential in the use of sawdust as waste product for the manufacture of SFB. The sawdust is produced at both sawmills and carpentries. Table 1 lists the places surveyed.

Table 1: Identification of the different sawdust sources

Identification of the facility	Sawdust/year (m3)
A :- Saw mill FERMENCO; Santa Clara.	815
B :- Saw mill CASCAJAL; VC	367
C :- Saw mill MANICARAGUA; VC	495
D :- Saw mill CPA MANICARAGUA; VC	122
E :- Saw mill CUBA-PARK; Placetas,VC	545
F :- Saw mill JIBACOA; VC	122
G :- Saw mill CPA Ovidio Rivero; VC	18
H :- Carpentry Poder Popular Sagua la Grande, VC	15
I :- Carpentry LA CAMPANA; VC	14
J:- Carpentry MICONS;	22
TOTAL	2535

The total estimated yearly sawdust production is in the range of 2535 m³ (405 ton); however, there are differences between the type and characteristics of the material, depending on where and from what it is produced. The main types of sawdust referred are:

1. Sawdust produced directly at sawmills when the wood is processed.

2. Sawdust produced at carpentries when timber is processed

3. Shopped wood produced while processing timber at carpentries

Figure 1 presents the different types of sawdust, and their proportions. As expected, the largest share of material comes from the sawmills as coarse sawdust resulting from wood processing. The amount of shopped wood is insignificant compared to the two other types, however regarding it could be important, since it helps increasing handling strength of the SFB.

Figure 2: Main sources of sawdust at Villa Clara province

Fig. 2 presents the distribution of the main sources of sawdust at Villa Clara province. There are four zones clearly defined where most of the sawdust production is concentrated:

a) Near the industrial centers at Santa Clara city: the wood is brought to be processed at the sawmills that operate directly on the city grid.

b) At the Escambray mountains, near Manicaragua, where the wood is processed directly at the forest areas.

c) At Placetas where large sawmill processes wood coming from the mountains.

d) At Cascajal, where a large sawmill processes wood coming from the west of the country.

Fig 3 presents the sawdust generations in the described regions at Villa Clara province. As seen, the sawdust production is evenly distributed among the main four regions. The amount of sawdust produced per year in each of the described regions is enough to hold a steady production at least at one of the SFB workshops.

Bearing this in mind, the logical decision making as per setting up a SFB workshop should be:

· First step (pilot scale): Santa Clara and/or Manicaragua

· Second step (further dissemination): Placetas or Cascajal

The project’s decisions actually followed the above-described criteria. The first workshop was set at Santa Clara city in September 2002, with a total sawdust availability of 860 m³ per year. The sawdust sources are located in a radius of 1.5 km from the workshop, thus making it possible transportation in three wheeler bicycles or even horse carriages.

The second workshop was located on January 2003 at the outskirts of the town Manicaragua, a couple of hundred meters away from the main source of sawdust, thus making it even easier to source the sawdust. Both workshops (Santa Clara and Manicaragua) are in experimental production.

2.1.2 Calorific value and emissions of sawdust’s SFB

The tests were performed by a team of experts of CETA (Center for Thermo Energetic Studies) at the Central University of las Villas. The main studies were:

1. Immediate analysis: this included moisture, according to ASTM D-3175-73; Volatiles, according to ASTM D-3175-77; Ashes, according to ASTM D-3174-73; and Fixed carbon.

2. Elementary analysis: it aimed at determining the percentages of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur and oxygen in each of the sampled burning.

3. Calorific Value: it was estimated on the basis of the method proposed by Cukierman et al[1] for the SFB, and the mixtures of SFB and firewood as well.

The main equipment used for the experimental measurements was:

1. Gas analyzer RBR-ECOM-SG PLUS: it is an electronic equipment that permits simultaneous determining of oxygen, carbon dioxide and monoxide, nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, and both the room temperature and the exhaust gas temperature.

2. Digital thermometer Kane Maye: to measure the exhaust gas temperature separately.

The tests were carried out in two different facilities, as listed below:

· Kitchen 1: VICLAR enterprise, Santa Clara: it is a kitchen that attends approximately 200 people working on VICLAR. They basically cook lunch. The evaluation was done during September 2001, and focused mainly on emissions (see report phase 2)

· Kitchen 2: EPP-4, Santa Clara: it is a kitchen that attends 150 people, basically for lunch services. The evaluation was done on January-February 2003, and focused on emissions, calorific value and air quality.

The results of both testing are included in the annexes of this report. Table 2 presents the results of the tests carried out in kitchen 2, mainly the immediate and elementary analysis, as well as calorific value and apparent density.

Table 2: Immediate and elementary analysis, calorific value and apparent density of the tested samples.

Sample	% W	%Vv (lh)	%Cf (lh)	%A (lh)	%C (lhc)	%H (lhc)	*%O (lhc)**	%N (lhc)	dap(g/ml)	PCS (kJ/kg)
*Clay*
Average value	7.12	5.86	0.23	93.91	-	-	-	-	1.113	-
*Sawdust*
Average value	15.06	90.90	8.72	0.38	43,13	6,21	49,44	1,22	0.166	17983
*Solid Fuel Block*
Average value	13.04	81,54	7.46	11.00	48,46	5,69	44,75	1,10	2.161	18485

Legend:

The tests confirm the high calorific value of the SFB, comparable to that of the sawdust alone. This indicates that the presence of clay does not significantly influence its fuel properties. The results of the tests were also visually confirmed while watching the burning of the SFB directly at the stoves.

Table 3 presents the average results of the analysis of the emissions in the evaluated samples. The study aimed at comparing the different burning conditions that occur when firewood is burnt alone or with different SFB proportions, and also when the SFB are burnt alone. The results reflect that similar burning conditions occur regardless the combination SFB / firewood, which means that the SFB burns basically similar to regular firewood.

Every time the solid fuel is fed to the burning chamber, the gas temperature decreases. This brings about an increase in CO and O₂ concentrations, since it apparently the drag of the chimney cannot cope with the sudden increase volume of gas produced. Shortly after, when the stove begins to work in stable regime, the gas temperature rises, and the CO and O₂ concentrations are significantly lowered. During SFB combustion the CO concentration was always slightly higher than in other cases, which probably indicates an incomplete burning, because of excessive water content in the blocks. It is therefore recommended to dry the SFB further, in order to attain a complete burning.

Table 3: Analysis of exhaust gas emissions during combustion

Experiment	Room T (°C)	Gas T (°C)	O₂ (%)	CO₂ (%)	CO (ppm)	NO (ppm)	NO₂(ppm)	NO_x(ppm)	SO₂ (ppm)
*Firewood alone*
Exp. 1	29	249	14.2	6.6	1 439	59	0	59	0
Exp. 2	30	381	13.7	7.1	1 624	60	0	60	0
Exp. 3	30	427	14.0	6.8	1732	58	0	58	0
Exp. 4	31	256	16.8	3.6	5 861	38	0	38	0
Exp. 5	29	293	16.7	4.0	2 475	41	0	41	0
Exp. 6	29	324	13.5	7.4	415	71	0	71	0
Exp. 7	30	480	14.4	6.5	444	61	0	61	0
*Firewood + SFB*
Exp. 8	31	383	16.1	4.7	1 911	39	0	39	0
Exp. 9	30	351	18.0	2.6	3 841	33	0	33	0
Exp. 10	30	375	17.6	3.0	3 665	36	0	36	0
Exp. 11	29	450	16.6	4.1	2 443	33	1	34	0
Exp. 12	30	435	16.8	3.9	2 828	32	1	33	0
*SFB alone*
Exp. 13	30	338	18.3	2.3	3 217	24	0	24	0
Exp. 14	29	314	18.7	1.9	3 350	23	0	23	0
Exp. 15	31	277	19.1	1.5	3 361	22	0	22	0
Exp. 16	30	401	17.6	3.2	1 894	30	0	30	0
Exp. 17	30	398	17.7	3.1	1 904	30	0	30	0
Exp. 18	29	411	17.2	3.5	2 089	34	0	34	0
Exp. 19	30	326	17.7	2.9	3 217	25	0	25	0
Exp. 20	31	344	16.7	3.9	3 648	20	0	20	0
Exp. 21	30	369	16.4	4.4	1 137	24	0	24	0

2.1.3 Price of sawdust

The sawdust is basically a waste product, and most of the facilities where it is produced do not charge for supply. There are, however, two sawmills at Santa Clara (Fermenco and La Campana) that charge $10/m³ (Cuban pesos[2]) for eventually supplying the material.

It is foreseen that in the near future, and mainly because of this project, sawdust producers will realize the importance of this material and will start selling their product, which no longer be considered a waste, but a valuable good.

2.1.4 Sawdust’s collection system

The collection system has to be studied in close connection with the closest source of sawdust at the workshop. Three transportation possibilities were evaluated:

1. Three-wheeler bicycle: the model available at the local market enables to carry up to 9 sacks of compacted sawdust, each weighing 33.7 kg.

2. Horse carriage: it is a very popular and relatively cheap transportation means. An average size carriage enables transport of 20 sacks of compacted sawdust, each weighing 33.7 kg.

3. 5 ton truck: it should be the most expensive of all the alternatives, however for longer distance its use could be justified. A full truck can carry up to 100 sacks of compacted sawdust, each weighing 33.7 kg.

Table 4: Transportation analysis, workshop at Santa Clara

*Three-wheeler cycle*
Needed trips/d	Needed sacks/d	Sack/trip	Kg/trip	Speed (km/h)	Distance (km)	Time (min)
1.44	13	9	336.6	20	1.5	39

*Horse carriage*
Needed trips/d	Needed sacks/d	Sack/trip	Kg/trip	Speed (km/h)	Distance (km)	Time (min)
0.65	13	20	748	20	1.5	54

*Diesel truck 5 ton*
Needed trips/d	Needed sacks/d	Sack/trip	Kg/trip	Speed (km/h)	Distance (km)	Time (min)
0.13	13	100	3740	30	1.5	61

Tables 4 presents the different transportation options for the workshop at Santa Clara. Table 5 provides the same information for the workshop at Manicaragua. The approximate need of sawdust for the daily output of the workshop (200 blocks, each weighing approximately 1 kg) is 13 33.7 kg sacks. The analysis of the figures reflects:

· That every second day the three-wheeler should complete 3 round trips.

· That approximately the horse carriage should have to do 3 trips per week.

· That every nine days a truck trip could be organized.

Table 5: Transportation analysis, workshop at Manicaragua

*Three-wheeler cycle*
Needed trips/d	Needed sacks/d	Sack/trip	Kg/trip	Speed (km/h)	Distance (km)	Time (min)
1.44	13	9	336.6	20	1	36

*Horse carriage*
Needed trips/d	Needed sacks/d	Sack/trip	Kg/trip	Speed (km/h)	Distance (km)	Time (min)
0.65	13	20	748	20	1	51

*Diesel Truck 5 ton*
Needed trips/d	Needed sacks/d	Sack/trip	Kg/trip	Speed (km/h)	Distance (km)	Time (min)
0.13	13	100	3740	30	1	59

Then the issues “foreign currency costs” (associated with purchasing petrol), and “time” should be weighed. The best option appears to be the three-wheeler bicycle, and actually both workshops are equipped with such transportation means. However, alternatives like horse carriages and 5-ton truck should also be evaluated in a determined context. The cost analysis to be done further in this report will give a few hints on the different alternatives.

2.2 Acceptability of the technology

In order to complete the dissemination process, the acceptability of the product must be assessed. The best way to do so was to implement a client survey among those in connection either with the manufacture of the SFB or with the use of it. Besides, a full health study was conducted in order to assess impact of the use of the product on human health, basically because of the emissions.

2.2.1. Client survey

The client survey was done during the seminar with most of the producers and clients. Table 6 presents the results of the processing of the survey. The results could be summarized as:

· Most of the clients accept the current size and shape of the SFB. Some recommend making it even bigger.

· The great majority of clients think that in its present shape the block is light and can be easily handled.

· There are crossed opinions about the price. It appears to be some disagreement with the present price.

· The great majority of clients think that the SFB burns relatively good. Most of them also think that it burns better than firewood.

· The SFB is seen as a cheaper alternative in comparison with firewood

· They agree that the SFB is the easiest fuel to handle with.

Table 6: results of the client’s survey

*About the product Solid Fuel Block*
	Answer 1	#	%	Answer 2	#	%	Answer 3	#	%
Size is OK?	Yes	9	75%	No	1	8%
If negative, should it be?	Bigger	7	58%	Smaller		0%
Is it too heavy?	Yes	0	0%	No	10	83%
Is it easy to handle?	Yes	11	92%	No		0%
Your opinion about the current price	OK	3	25%	Lower		0%	Higher	2	17%

*About the use of Solid Fuel Block*

How does it burn?	Good	10	83%	Middle	1	8%	Bad
In comparison to firewood it is?	Better	8	67%	Same	1	8%	Worse	1	8%
Does it produce smoke?	No	1	8%	Few	9	75%	A lot
Costs in comparison with firewood?	+ expens.		0%	Same	1	8%	Cheaper	8	67%
Which one is easier to work with?	Firewood		0%	SFB	9	75%	Other

2.2.2 Health impact assessment

The health impact was assessed by means of measuring the quality of air of the zone where the combustion was undertaken during 8 continuous days. For this experiment kitchen 2 was selected, as they are the main customers for the SFB. In this timeframe, various combinations of SFB and firewood were tested, included one day where cooking was done only based on SFB supply.

This was done with an air-monitoring kit. The process consists of monitoring the daily sulfur concentration on the air through oxidation in a hydrogen peroxide solution 1% and the particles of material present in the atmosphere mainly because to incomplete combustion of the burnt material. Such material was collected through a high-volume captor and the filters with micrometric pores that correspond to each of the evaluated days that are further analyzed with a TVM 100 reflectometer.

The measurement is based on the darkening of the filter in comparison with a non-exposed filter, which has the advantage of retaining the black smokes from the emitter. The progress of each of these parameters was daily analyzed, and the concentrations were recorded in mg/m³referred to the sampled air (1.5 – 2 m³ per day)

Figs. 4 and 5 present the results of the measurements done. The SFB were burnt on day 5; notice that this day there was a slight increase on the measured concentrations. As a rule, the quality of air in the studied area is relatively good, since the determined concentrations are far below the established limits.

The main factors that favor these low concentrations are: a) good wind circulation, b) the area is far from the main industrial centers in the city. The above-mentioned aspects allow us to conclude that no significant health hazards are produced because of the shift from firewood to SFB in kitchen 2.

Fig. 4: Air quality assessment: sulfur dioxide content

Fig. 5: Air quality assessment: suspended particle content

2.3 Definitive cost analysis

Preliminary estimates were done in order to assess the likely price for the new product. After the continuous operation of both pilot workshops, these figures could be fine tuned according to reality. This section presents the results of this analysis.

2.3.1. Definitive SFB cost sheet

As done in the previous phase, for the cost estimate only local currency was considered, since hard currency expenses like diesel for transport are not necessary. The costs of production are described below:

1. Fixed production costs: basically include cost of indirect labor force, financial costs, transport, maintenance and other costs. As the production is very simply organized, financial costs are not considered in this analysis. This means they use their own financial resources; therefore they do not need to go for bank loans.

2. Variable production costs: basically include the cost of raw materials such as sawdust and clay, the cost of commodities like water and electricity, and finally the cost of direct labor force. All these costs have been set according to information provided by the workshops.

3. Profitability margin: they usually assume it as of 20% profit. This is relatively easy to achieve, since they have been momentarily released from the production and sales taxes, as a means to stimulate production of this environmentally friendly product.

According to the author of this report, the minimal price established for a SFB unit is $CUP 0.24 /kg. This could be expressed in mass as $CUP 240/ton or in volume as $CUP 38.4/m³ (for the accepted value 1 m³=160 kg).

There are, however, problems with the price calculation done by the administration of the workshop. Table 7 presents both cost schemes where the main differences can be observed. The main problem found was the routine established to calculate the indirect costs of the product, which leads to misinterpretations of the concept of production. The indirect costs calculated by the administration are almost twice as much as those estimated by the consultant, based on actual figures provided by the workshop. This problem has to be addressed in the near future.

Table 7: Comparison between cost calculations

Concept	Unit cost/official	Unit cost/estim.	Dif %
Materials	$ 0.00	$ 0.01	$ (0.01)
Labor	$ 0.16	$ 0.16	$ 0.01
Taxes	$ -	$ -	$ -
Indirect costs	$ 0.08	$ 0.03	$ 0.05
Total cost	$ 0.24	$ 0.19	$ 0.05
Profit margin	$ 0.05	$ 0.04	$ 0.01
Final price	$ 0.29	$ 0.24	$ 0.05

The main cause for the relatively high prices of the product is the low productivity of the existing presses. Also, the workshop is operated by disable people, which have a less demanding working schedule.

The administration claims that every press is capable of producing up to 50 blocks in an 8 hours journey. Practical observation of the production indicates that every three minutes a block can be produced without special effort. This means approximately 20 blocks per hour; 160 blocks per day, three times the amount considered in this report.

2.3.2 Comparison with other alternatives fuels

The alternative product traded in the market (firewood) is sold at approximately $CUP 58.8/m³. Besides, the firewood has to be cut and brought to the workshop usually from distance places. This requires a truck or a tractor, which means diesel or petrol that has to be purchased in hard currency.

Table 8 presents a cost comparison between the SFB and the current price of firewood. As seen, the price of SFB is approximately 33% lower than that of firewood. Besides, the manufacture of SFB does not imply hard currency, as the transportation is organized with local means, and no petrol is therefore needed.

Table 8: Cost comparison with firewood

Firewood

Price x m3

SFB minimal scenario

Price x m³

Price x unit

Days for BEP

58.80

39.06

0.24

There are significant differences with the estimations of unit weight of the SFB and the actual weight, which reflect in apparent contradictions in the comparison, since the cost difference still remains although the prices of the SFB has almost tripled.

The most important thing is that firewood is provided at the cost of depleting the tropical forests in Cuba, and the SFB is an environmentally friendly product, whose manufacture implies recycling of waste materials and job creation.

2.3.3. Potential for technology optimizing

The optimizing of technology has to pass through the design of the hand press. The output has to be increased, and the force to be exerted while pressing decreased.

There are current design improvements underway (see annex 4). The new press presses two units simultaneously; this allows to automatically doubling the output. The thread of the piston is designed in a way that the movement of the piston upwards and downwards is faster as in the original model. Besides, the lever to exert the force to the piston is longer; therefore less force is needed in order to attain the same pressure. This makes the new design gender sensible.

3. Seminar with producers

The final tuning of the technology, as well as the start of the dissemination was carried out through a seminar. The event was held on January 28^th, 2003, at the workshop at Manicaragua. In total, 17 persons participated (see Annex 5), most of them from the workshops in Santa Clara and Manicaragua; also some of the potential clients, which were curious to see the performance of the new product.

The goal of the seminar was to train producers in the use of the technology; also to show potential clients the features of the new product. Practical SFB manufacture was organized as part of the workshop, as well as trial burning of some of the recently produced SFBs.

4. Conclusions

The impact assessment showed that the technology for the SFB manufacture could likely be implemented in Cuba with great success. The manufacture process is friendly enough; the product has relatively good acceptability among producers and potential clients, and competes with advantages with the alternative fuel available: firewood.

ANNEX 1: Smoke Analysis. Kitchen 1: VICLAR enterprise Santa Clara

The following table presents the mean values of the results of the different analysis carried out.

Time	Troom (°C)	Tgas (°C)	O₂ (%)	CO₂ (%)	CO (ppm)	NO (ppm)	NO₂(ppm)	SO₂ (ppm)	Effic. (%)
02:47	33	120	19.5	1.5	18 850	358	0	0	50
02:48	33	117	20.0	1.0	16 808	414	0	0	50
02:51	33	129	19.6	1.4	14 889	280	0	0	50
02:53	33	137	19.1	1.9	14 686	239	0	0	50
02:55	32	123	19.6	1.4	27 412	428	0	0	40
02:56	32	129	19.0	2.0	13 299	258	0	0	50
03:11	30	117	19.9	1.1	25 195	376	0	0	40
03:16	29	110	20.0	1.0	41 151	600	0	0	40
03:17	29	115	19.8	1.2	24 305	448	0	0	40
03:21	31	129	19.7	1.3	19 187	318	0	0	45
03:22	31	125	20.0	1.0	39 226	455	0	0	40

These figures allow us to establish some interrelations between the evaluated parameters, as illustrated in the following graphics.

Dependency between the CO concentration and the gas temperature during SFB combustión.

Dependency between the NO concentration and the gas temperature during the SFB combustion.

Dependency between the O concentration and the gas temperature during the SFB combustion

ANNEX-2: Smoke and Calorific Value analysis. Kitchen 2: EPP-4. Santa Clara

The following table presents the results of the experiments: immediate and elemental anaysis, calorific value and apparent density.

Sample	% W	%Vv (lh)	%Cf (lh)	%A (lh)	%C (lhc)	%H (lhc)	*%O (lhc)**	%N (lhc)	dap(g/ml)	CV (kJ/kg)
Clay
Experiment 1	7.10	5.83	0.23	93.94	-	-	-	-	1.114	-
Experiment 2	7.05	6.07	0.13	93.80	-	-	-	-	1.112	-
Experiment 3	7.20	5.67	0.33	94.00	-	-	-	-	1.113	-
Mean values	7.12	5.86	0.23	93.91	-	-	-	-	1.113	-
Sawdust
Experiment 1	14.50	88.55	11.02	0.43	44,46	6,08	48,27	1,19	0.168	18242
Experiment 2	15.22	91.33	8.00	0.67	42,88	6,23	49,66	1,22	0.167	17935
Experiment 3	15.47	92.81	7.13	0.06	42,04	6,32	50,40	1,24	0.163	17772
Mean values	15.06	90.90	8.72	0.38	43,13	6,21	49,44	1,22	0.166	17983
Solid Fuel Block
Experiment 1	13.51	79,73	8.07	12.20	49,49	5,59	43,84	1,07	2.164	18799
Experiment 2	12.87	82,19	7.80	10.01	48,09	5,73	45,08	1,11	2.159	18382
Experiment 3	12.75	82,71	6.50	10.79	47,79	5,76	45,34	1,11	2.159	18275
Mean values	13.04	81,54	7.46	11.00	48,46	5,69	44,75	1,10	2.161	18485

The following table presents the mean values of the results of the different analysis carried out. The study was done by comparing and combining the different fuel alternatives

Experiment	Room T (°C)	Gas T (°C)	O₂ (%)	CO₂ (%)	CO (ppm)	NO (ppm)	NO₂(ppm)	NO_x(ppm)	SO₂ (ppm)
*Firewood alone*
Exp. 1	29	249	14.2	6.6	1 439	59	0	59	0
Exp. 2	30	381	13.7	7.1	1 624	60	0	60	0
Exp. 3	30	427	14.0	6.8	1732	58	0	58	0
Exp. 4	31	256	16.8	3.6	5 861	38	0	38	0
Exp. 5	29	293	16.7	4.0	2 475	41	0	41	0
Exp. 6	29	324	13.5	7.4	415	71	0	71	0
Exp. 7	30	480	14.4	6.5	444	61	0	61	0
*Firewood + SFB*
Exp. 8	31	383	16.1	4.7	1 911	39	0	39	0
Exp. 9	30	351	18.0	2.6	3 841	33	0	33	0
Exp. 10	30	375	17.6	3.0	3 665	36	0	36	0
Exp. 11	29	450	16.6	4.1	2 443	33	1	34	0
Exp. 12	30	435	16.8	3.9	2 828	32	1	33	0
*SFB alone*
Exp. 13	30	338	18.3	2.3	3 217	24	0	24	0
Exp. 14	29	314	18.7	1.9	3 350	23	0	23	0
Exp. 15	31	277	19.1	1.5	3 361	22	0	22	0
Exp. 16	30	401	17.6	3.2	1 894	30	0	30	0
Exp. 17	30	398	17.7	3.1	1 904	30	0	30	0
Exp. 18	29	411	17.2	3.5	2 089	34	0	34	0
Exp. 19	30	326	17.7	2.9	3 217	25	0	25	0
Exp. 20	31	344	16.7	3.9	3 648	20	0	20	0
Exp. 21	30	369	16.4	4.4	1 137	24	0	24	0

ANNEX 3: SFB costs and price sheet

*COSTS*
Required external capital	$ 5,760.00
Investment	$ 5,160.00
Infrastructure	$ 4,760.00
Equipment	$ 400.00

Working capital	$ 600.00
technical assistance	$ -


Description	Costo Mens	Cost Unit	%
Monthly fixed costs	$ 277.67	$ 0.03	14%
Indirect work force	$ -	$ -	0.0%
Financial costs	$ 6.67	$ 0.00	0.4%
Infrastructure	$ -	$ -	0.0%
Equipment	$ 6.67	$ 0.00	0.4%
Initial costs	$ -	$ -	0.0%
Working capital	$ -	$ -	0.0%
Tools & Maintenance	$ 30.00	$ 0.00	0.2%
Transport	$ 240.00	$ 0.03	13.7%
Other fixed costs	$ 1.00	$ 0.00	0.1%


Monthly variable costs	$ 474.52	$ 0.17	85.7%
Raw materials	$ 24.77	$ 0.01	4.5%
Labor force	$ 449.74	$ 0.16	81.3%
Non-specialized	$ -	$ -	0.0%
Specialized	$ 449.74	$ 0.16	81.3%
Commodities	$ 0.01	$ 0.00	0.0%

Total production costs	$ 752.19	$ 0.19	100%

*SALES PRICE*

*With planned profit*	*$ 902.62*	*$ 0.24*
Variable costs	$ 474.52	$ 0.17
Fixed costs	$ 277.67	$ 0.03
Profit	$ 150.44	$ 0.04
Sale tax	$ -	$ -
*Final sale's price*	*$ 902.62*	*$ 0.24*

ANNEX 4: NEW PRESS DESIGN

ANNEX 5: List of participants. SFB seminar. Manicaragua, 28 January 2003

[1] Cukierman A. L., Della Rocca P. A., Bonelli P. R.; Cassanello M. C. “On the Study of Thermochemical Biomass Conversion”. Trends in Chemical Engineering, 3, 129-144, 1996.

[2] 27 Cuban pesos = 1 US dollar is the current exchange rate in Cuba

Table of Contents

Cuba’s Consolidated Report

SMALL SCALE URBAN WASTE MANAGEMENT FOR ENERGY PRODUCTION. PHASE 3

1. Introduction

3. Seminar with producers

4. Conclusions

ANNEX 3: SFB costs and price sheet

ANNEX 4: NEW PRESS DESIGN

ANNEX 5: List of participants. SFB seminar. Manicaragua, 28 January 2003