Data_ProcessIntensification

This basedata was constructed during the performing of experiments on pyrolysis process in pilot scale. In addition, a social-techno-economical assessment also was performed and the results are present in this work. Product yields obtained in the five experiments performed in the continuous pyrolysis reactor. Feed rate: 13 kg/h. Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 Air stream (m³/h) 12 10 9 8 6 Recycled stream (m³/h) 0 2 3 4 6 Temperature (°C) 550 520 480 440 330 Charcoal (wt %) 15.64 15.30 16.20 17.40 15.40 Acid extract (wt %) 27.60 33.30 29.70 21.75 14.85 Bio-oil (wt %) 9.20 9.90 11.70 12.18 6.60 Pyrolysis gas (wt %) 39.56 31.50 32.40 35.67 18.15 LHV pyrolysis gas (MJ/Nm³) 1.03 0.29 0.33 0.10 0.32 Tars and Heavy Hydrocarbons (wt %)* 8.00 10.00 10.00 13.00 45.00 Energy delivery potential (MJ/h) (Equation 1) 60.1 60.8 66.9 71.0 54.3 EEI (MJ/kg) (Equation 1) 35.9 29.5 34.5 35.9 11.2 (*): material removed during the reactor cleaning. PEC for continuous pyrolysis unit and electricity generators. Equipment Correlation used PEC (JUN/24 quotation) Hammer mill ICARUS correlation (Equation 2) US$ 12,740.00 Screw feeder CAPCOAST correlation (Equation 3) US$ 273.00 Pyrolysis reactor CAPCOAST correlation (Equation 3) US$ 14,615.00 Compressor (two) ICARUS correlation (Equation 2) US$ 1,902.00 Cyclone CAPCOAST correlation (Equation 3) US$ 1,709.00 Heat exchanger CAPCOAST correlation (Equation 3) US$ 1,860.00 Fan CAPCOAST correlation (Equation 3) US$ 6,907.00 Gas combustion chamber (*) GUTHRIE correlation (Equation 4) US$ 37,185.00 Storage tank for gas (2 m³) Searched in supplier (**) US$ 3,849.00 Storage tanks for char, bio-oil and acid extract Searched in supplier (**) US$ 83.30 Oil generator (Scenarios 1, 2 and 3) Searched in supplier (**) US$ 14,060.00 Gas generator (Scenario 4) Searched in supplier (**) US$ 43,940.00 Pelletizer Searched in supplier (**) US$ 1,102.00 (*): employed only in Scenario 3. (**): this quotation was made in January/2025. Main parameters of assessed pyrolysis generation scenarios. Parameter Scenario 1 (one shift) Scenario 2 (two shifts) Scenario 3 (two shifts) Scenario 4 (two shifts) Daily time of operation (h) 6.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 Daily biomass processed (h) 91.0 195.0 195.0 195.0 Daily char produced (kg) 14.7 32.8 32.8 32.8 Daily bio-oil produced (kg) 10.3 23.0 23.0 23.0 Daily acid extract produced (kg) 18.4 41.0 41.0 41.0 Daily pyrolysis gas produced (kg) 134.4 300.0 300.0 300.0 Daily energy consumed in pyrolysis unit (MJ) 185.0 390.4 391.2 391.2 Daily energy delivered by char (MJ) 329.4 734.7 734.7 734.7 Daily energy delivered by biooil (MJ) 183.2 408.7 408.7 408.7 Daily energy delivered by pyrolysis gas (MJ) 28.6 63.8 - - Daily potential energy delivered by pyrolysis plant (MJ) 541.2 1,207.2 1,143.4 1,143.4 Daily diesel consumption by generator (L) 89.1 178.2 178.2 - Daily natural gas consumption by generator (m³) 88.0 117.4 - - Daily LPG consumption by gas chamber (m³) - - 0.38 0.38 Daily time operation for oil generator (h) 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Daily time operation for gas generator (h) 6.0 8.0 - - Consumer units (CU's) benefited (*) 261 438 310 9 Renewable percentage 7.9 10.3 14.2 100.0 CU's supplied by renewable energy (basis: net energy) 20 45 40 9 (*)Considering CU electrical monthly consumption equal to 80 kWh (or 9.6 MJ). Monetary comparison of projects to deliver electricity for Amazon communities. Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 CAPEX (PDEC method) US$ 457,630.00 US$ 427,640.00 US$ 399,412.43 CAPEX (Lang method) US$ 451,635.00 US$ 422,040.00 US$ 394,180.78 OPEX (PDEC method) (*) US$ 153,570.00 US$ 238,656.00 US$ 203,023.00 US$ 196,151.82 OPEX (Lang method) (*) US$ 141,470.00 US$ 223,456.00 US$ 207,750.00 US$ 200,881.12 Photovoltaic kits for supplying the same CU's (**) US$ 4,926,538.00 US$ 2,935,677.00 US$ 3,486,820.00 US$ 101,230.23 Time in years for photovoltaic investment is equal to pyrolysis unit investment disregarding annual monetary valorization/decre ase. The value between parses is considering 10% a.y. of interest rate 16.1 (18.6) 18.7 (20.4) 15.1 (16.7) The photovoltaic investment is better already in the year zero (*): Attention should be paid because OPEX methodology is the same for both calculations, and not a particular property of these methodologies. (**)The "Luz para Todos" program establishes photovoltaic kits of about US$ 11.247,80. This kit is composed by four solar boards, one lithium battery, and electrical current alternator (Supp. Material) Social-techno-economic assessment by attributes for both technologies. Attributes Generation by pyrolysis unit Generation by photovoltaic kits Justification Lower fixed investment 1 0 The pyrolysis unit fixed investment is lower Lower OPEX 0 1 The photovoltaic units certainly have lower OPEX Local equipment purchase 1 0 The photovoltaic market in Brazil is still strongly dependent on external economies. On the other side, the pyrolysis unit was manufactured mostly with Brazilian equipment Local return investment 1 0 The photovoltaic cells are imported CU's benefitted/US$ invested 0 1 The equivalence of investments occurs far from the photovoltaic cell's lifetime (25 years). So, the CU's supplied by this will be maintained for a longer time and for the same investment Employability 1 0 The pyrolysis unit demands three workers per shift. The photovoltaic cells demand just two technicians for sporadic work Local income 1 0 The photovoltaic cells technicians are itinerant Formation demand 1 1 Both technologies need skilled workforce Electricity renewability 0 1 The photovoltaic cells' energy are totally renewable Harmless construction chain 1 0 The photovoltaic cells is more environmentally harmful Waste generation 0 1 The photovoltaic cells is known for not producing waste Waste disposal 0 1 The photovoltaic cells do not produce waste. The pyrolysis unit produces wastes and does not reuse all of them Without electricity consumption 0 1 The photovoltaic cells do not consume electricity Performances Economic 0.6 0.4 Social 0.8 0.4 Environmental 0.2 0.8 SEEI 0.46 0.60 Lang factors for different type process. Type of process medium Lang factor Solids medium 3,10 Solids and fluids medium 3,63 Fluids medium 4,74 Calculation routine in PDEC methodology. Parameter Percentage of Total purchased equipment Cost (TPEC) Purchased equipment installation 39 Instrumentation and controls 26 Piping 10 Electrical systems 31 Buildings (including services) 47 Yard improvements 12 Service facilities 55 Total Investment Equipment Costs (TIEC) TPEC*3,20 Engineering 32 Construction 34 Legal and contractor’s fees 23 Contingency 0,15 *FCI Total Investment Costs (TIC) 1,26 * TPEC Fixed Capital Investment (FCI) TIEC+TIC Working capital (WC) 75 Total Cost Investment (TCI) FCI + WC Operation expenditures description. Direct Costs Description Annual salaries cost Each turn (8 h) should have 3 employees. Two of them for plant operation (engineer + technical) and the third for administrative (four mensal salaries). $266,78 mensal salary at NOV/2024 Technical supervision This category was not accounted because the engineer and technical perform this Raw material This category was not accounted because considering biomass acquisition without charges Diesel consumption Consumed in oil generator. R$ 6,39/Liter in JAN/2025. (https://frotas.localiza.com/blog/preco-do-diesel-no-brasil) Natural gas consumption Consumed in gas generator. R$ 2,5307/Liter in DEZ/2024 (https://amazonas1.com.br/gas-natural-veicular-amazonastarifas-atualizadas-confira-valores/) Cooling water Zero cost because it is recycled in pyrolysis plant Maintenance and repairs 6% of FI or FCI Operating supplies 15% of previous one Laboratory charges 5% of “Annual salaries cost” Patents and Royalties 3% of TCI Indirect Costs Packaging and storage 0,1 % of sum (annual salaries + supervision + maintenance). Just the char will be packed for send to a thermoeletric Local taxes 1,5% of FCI or FI Fees 5% of FCI or FI Overhead Costs Administrative costs 3% of sum (direct costs + indirect costs) Products distribution and sale This category was not accounted because the products will not be commercialized Research and development 5% of FCI or FI OPEX annual Direct costs + Indirect costs + Overhead costs Correlation parameters used in PEC estimatives (EPE, 2018; Turton et al., 2018). Equipment Ball mill Roller mill Screw feeder Pyrolysis reactor Compressors (rotary blower) Cyclones Heat exchanger Fan (centrifugal separator) Gas chamber A 0 0 - - 0 - - - - B 0 0 - - 0 - - - - C 0,7414 0,6113 - - 0,5392 - - - - D 8,6769 8,9459 - - 5,9415 - - - - K1 - - 3,6062 4,7116 - 4,152 2,7652 4,3612 - K2 - - -0,7341 - 0,5521 - - 0,5299 0,7282 -0,1236 - K3 - - 0,1982 0,0004 - 0,0171 0,0783 -0,0049 - C1 - - - - - - 0 - - C2 - - - - - - 0 - - C3 - - - - - - 0 - - B1 - - - - - - 1,74 - - B2 - - - - - - 1,55 - - Fm 1 1 2 1,5 1 1 - 1,5 0 Fp - - - - - - 1 - 0 Fd - - - - - - - - 1