212 aparna

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 ChowdhuryChemical Engineering Department, Jadavpur University

Kolkata 700 032

Presented by,Presented by,Aparna SarkarAparna Sarkar

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

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.

Background of the research studyBackground of the research study

Mechanism of pyrolysis of feed stock

Feed stockMSW 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)

Background of the research study

Pyrolysis Feedstock: Paper Waste and Mustard Press Cake

Packing paper Newspaper Printing Paper (60%) (30%) (10%) Paper Waste Mustard Press Cake

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

Proximate and Ultimate Analyses of Feed stocks

PW

Materials and Methods

Lab-scale Pyrolysis Experimental Set-Up

Materials and Methods

Product Yield

Statistical Modeling and Optimization through RSM

Energy Yield = + 51.72 + 0.77 * A – 10.21 * B – 0.88 * A * B + 2.50 * A2 – 15.40 * B2

Maximum energy yield: 56.5% (A: 8.8:1.0, B: 812 K)

Ratio of PW to MPC

Pyr

olys

is t

emp

erat

ure

(K)

Ratio of PW to MPC

Pyrolysis temperature(K)

Per

cen

tage

of

ener

gy y

ield

of

bio

-oil

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

Phases of LCA

Goal and Scope

Goal and scope of LCAGo

System boundary of pyrolysis plant

system bou=System Boundaries for LCA

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

Pretreatment of simulated waste

)2(0.44**)/1(*)]**/(1[*,2 ccCEEactualdryingdyingCNMWGCVDPPECO

)1(]**)1(})*{([* 11 TcpWHTcpWME swVwwdrying

LCA analysis of pyrolysis plant

Slow Pyrolysis

)3()1()()1( HwMTTCWME dspypswpy

LCA analysis of pyrolysis plant

Utilization of Pyro-Char, Pyro-Oil and Pyro-GasUtilization of pyro-oil in power plant

LCA analysis of pyrolysis plant

)4(**

*

/

//

foilpyrocharpyro

oilpyrocharpyrooilpyroCharpyro

EGCV

WME

)5(0.44*]*

[*

/

/

//2

oilpyrocharpyro

oilpyrocharpyro

oilpyrocharpyrooilpyrocharpyro

CN

MW

WMCO

)6(*)]*

*(**[(

44 fCHCH

COCOGasGas

EGCVX

GCVXWME

)7(0.44*)(**

42 CHCOGas

GasGas XX

MW

WMCO

LCA analysis of pyrolysis plant

3.6 Incineration

)8(** ffeedstockfeedstock EGCVME

)9(44**/2 Nfeedstock CMWMCO

LCA analysis of pyrolysis plant

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)

5.0176 0.112

Transportation of waste to power

plant (incineration

8.064 0.056

Energy output of two pyrolysis options

Unit phase(output)

Energy generated (GJ)

Pyro-char and pyro-gas 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

Life Cycle Efficiency

)10(100*b

u

E

EEefficiencycycleLife

)11(100*

b

g

E

EefficiencycycleLife

IncinerationUpstream

Results and discussions

Net Energy RatioNet energy ratio estimated by using the following equation,

)12(ffE

EratioenergyNet

Results and discussion

Comparison of two pyrolysis options with incineration method

GHG emission avoided in two pyrolysis options and incineration method

Results and discussions

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.

Thank You