1. Co-pyrolysis of Simulated Municipal Paper Wastes
and solid Wastes of Mustard Oil Mills – Optimization
of Energy Yield of Lab-Scale Pyrolyser through
RSM (Response Surface Methodology) and LCA
(Life Cycle Assessment) of 100 t/d Plants
Aparna Sarkar, Prof. Ranjana Chowdhury
Chemical Engineering Department, Jadavpur University
Kolkata 700 032
Presented by,
Aparna Sarkar

2. Arrangement of the Lecture
• Background of the research study
• Objectives of the study
• Materials and methods
• Product yield of PW and MPC
• RSM
• Introduction of LCA methodology
• LCA analysis of pyrolysis plant
• Results and discussions
• Conclusion

3. Pyrolysis
 Direct thermal
decomposition of organic
matrix in an inert
atmosphere
 Temperature range is
300˚C - 1000˚C
 The product yield may
be maximized by
adjusting the operating
conditions.
Mechanism of pyrolysis of feed stock
Background of the research study

4. Feed stock
MSW of Kolkata (Generation rate:2653 t/d)
1.Food and Garden wastes 40%,
2.Textile 6%
3.Paper wastes 27%
4.Plastic wastes 4%,
5.Metals 3%,
6.Glass and ceramic 5%,
7.Inert 15%
(CPHEEO manual on MSW management,
2005)
Pyrolysis Feedstock: Paper Waste and Mustard Press Cake
Packing paper
(60%)
Newspaper Printing Paper
(30%)
(10%)
Paper Waste
Mustard Press Cake
Background of the research study

5. Objectives of the study
• Investigation on the performance of a laboratory scale semi-batch pyrolyser
for co-pyrolysis of Paper waste (PW) and mustard press cake (MPC) using
the reactor temperature and the ratio of PW to MPC as parameters
• Development of a statistical model to predict the energy yield with respect to
bio-oil as a function of temperature and the ratio of PW to MPC using RSM
technique.
• Determination of the condition corresponding to maximum energy yield
through Optimization.
• Life cycle analysis of a 100 tpd Co-pyrolysis plant for PW and MPC
mixture at the maximum energy yield condition
• Comparison of the energy analysis and GHG emission data of the pyrolysis
plant with those of conventional incineration plant for power generation

6. Proximate and Ultimate Analyses of Feed
stocks
PW
Materials and Methods

7. Lab-scale Pyrolysis Experimental Set-Up
Materials and Methods

8. Product Yield

9. Statistical Modeling and Optimization through RSM
Pyrolysis temperature(K)
Percentage of energy yield of bio-oil
Energy Yield = + 51.72 + 0.77 * A – 10.21 * B – 0.88 * A * B + 2.50 * A 2 – 15.40 * B2
Maximum energy yield: 56.5% (A: 8.8:1.0, B: 812 K)
Py
ro
ly
si s
Ratio of PW to MPC
te
m
pe
r
at
ur
e
(K
)
io
Rat
PC
to M
W
of P

10. LCA of 100 t/d pyrolysis plant operated at Maximum
Energy Yield Condition (T:812K; PW:MPC:: 8.8:1.0
Phases of LCA

11. Goal and Scope
Goal and scope of LCAGo

12. System boundary of pyrolysis plant
system bou=System Boundaries for LCA

13. Unit Process and Inventory Analysis
Plant construction and dismantling and transportation of waste
Materials required for plant construction and dismantling and fuel required for
transportation
Sl No
Materials and diesel
required
Amount required (tonne)
1.
Concrete
390.0
2.
Steel
190.50
3.
Aluminium
1.90
4.
Diesel
5.24
LCA analysis of pyrolysis plant

14. Pretreatment of simulated waste
Edrying = M *[Ww{(cpw * ∆ T1 ) + ∆ HV } + (1 − Ww ) * cps * ∆ T1 ]
CO2 dying = Edrying , actual *[1 /( PPE * DE * GCVC )] * (1 / MWc ) * CN c * 44.0
LCA analysis of pyrolysis plant
(1)
( 2)

15. Slow Pyrolysis
E py = M (1 − Ww )C ps (Tpy − Tds ) + M (1 − w)∆ H
LCA analysis of pyrolysis plant
(3)

16. Utilization of Pyro-Char, Pyro-Oil and Pyro-Gas
Utilization of pyro-oil in power plant
LCA analysis of pyrolysis plant

17. E pyro −Char / pyro −oil = M *W pyro −char / pyro −oil
* GCV pyro −char / pyro −oil * E f
CO2 pyro −char / pyro −oil = M * [
( 4)
W pyro −char / pyro −oil
MW pyro −char / pyro −oil
* CN pyro −char / pyro −oil ] * 44.0
(5)
EGas =[( M *WGas * ( X CO * GCVCO +
X CH 4 * GCVCH 4 )]* E f
CO2 Gas
( 6)
M *WGas
=
* ( X CO + X CH 4 ) * 44.0
MWGas
(7)
LCA analysis of pyrolysis plant

18. 3.6 Incineration
E feedstock = M * GCV feedstock * E f
(8)
CO2 = M / MW feedstock * C N * 44
(9)
LCA analysis of pyrolysis plant

19. Results and Discussions
Energy input and GHG emission of two
pyrolysis options
Unit phase
(input)
Energy used
(GJ)
GHG emission (t
CO2eq)
Plant
construction
0.021
1.66
Transportation of
waste sample
8.064
0.056
Drying
39.90
14.57
Pyrolysis
75.096
27.42
Pyro-oil transport
(only for option
2)
Transportation of
waste to power
plant
(incineration
5.0176
0.112
8.064
0.056
Energy output of two pyrolysis
options
Unit phase
(output)
Energy generated
(GJ)
Pyro-char and pyrogas used for CHP
steam generation
(both for option 1 and
2)
480.65
Pyro-oil used in DG
plant
(option 1)
476.14
Pyro-oil used in
power plant
(option 2)
349.25
Waste used directly
(incineration) in
power plant
510
Results and discussions

20. Life Cycle Efficiency
Upstream
Life cycle efficiency =
E − Eu
*100
Eb
Incineration
(10)
Life cycle efficiency =
Eg
Eb
*100
Results and discussions
(11)

21. Net Energy Ratio
Net energy ratio estimated by using the following equation,
Net energy ratio =
E
E ff
(12)
Results and discussion

22. Comparison of two pyrolysis options with
incineration method
GHG emission avoided in two pyrolysis options and incineration method
Results and discussions

23. Conclusion
 Maximum Energy yield of 56.5%, based on bio-oil, is obtained at pyrolysis
temperature of 812 K and PW:MPC:: 8.8:1.0
 The energy analysis and GHG emission data of two alternative processes
have been interpreted and compared with the conventional option of
incineration.
 GHG performances of both pyrolysis schemes are better than the direct
incineration process for power generation.
 Although the life cycle efficiency of pyrolysis option (1) is the best among
the three options the GHG emission avoided is the highest in case of
pyrolysis option 2.
 More analysis on parametric sensitivity will reveal the best option for the
most practicable operation of the plant.

24. Thank You