energies

Article
Economic Feasibility Study of the Production of Biogas, Coke
and Biofuels from the Organic Fraction of Municipal Waste
Using Pyrolysis
Benedito Franciano Ferreira Rodrigues 1 , Anderson Rocha Amaral 2 , Fernanda Paula da Costa Assunção 1 ,
Lucas Pinto Bernar 2 , Marcelo Costa Santos 2 , Neyson Martins Mendonça 3 , José Almir Rodrigues Pereira 3 ,
Douglas Alberto Rocha de Castro 4 , Sergio Duvoisin, Jr. 5 , Pablo Henrique Ataide Oliveira 6 ,
Luiz Eduardo Pizarro Borges 6 and Nélio Teixeira Machado 1,2,3, *

1 Graduate Program of Civil Engineering, Campus Profissional-UFPA, Universidade Federal do Pará,

Citation: Rodrigues, B.F.F.; Amaral,
A.R.; Assunção, F.P.d.C.; Bernar, L.P.;
Santos, M.C.; Mendonça, N.M.;
Pereira, J.A.R.; Castro, D.A.R.d.;
Duvoisin, S., Jr.; Oliveira, P.H.A.; et al.
Economic Feasibility Study of the
Production of Biogas, Coke and
Biofuels from the Organic Fraction of
Municipal Waste Using Pyrolysis.
Energies 2024, 17, 269. https://
doi.org/10.3390/en17010269
Academic Editor: Egle Sendzikiene
Received: 26 October 2023
Revised: 13 December 2023
Accepted: 18 December 2023
Published: 4 January 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Rua Augusto Corrêa N◦ 1, Belém 66075-110, Brazil; engcivilfranciano@hotmail.com (B.F.F.R.);
fernanda.assuncao.itec@gmail.com (F.P.d.C.A.)
2 Graduate Program of Natural Resources Engineering of Amazon, Campus Profissional-UFPA,
Universidade Federal do Pará, Rua Augusto Corrêa N◦ 1, Belém 66075-110, Brazil;
arochaamaral@hotmail.com (A.R.A.); lucas.bernar7@gmail.com (L.P.B.); marcelo.santos@ufra.edu.br (M.C.S.)
3 Faculty of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering, Campus Profissional-UFPA,
Universidade Federal do Pará, Rua Corrêa N◦ 1, Belém 66075-900, Brazil;
neysonmm.ufpa@gmail.com (N.M.M.); rpereira@ufpa.br (J.A.R.P.)
4 Centro Universitário Luterano de Manaus–CEULM/ULBRA, Avenida Carlos Drummond de Andrade
N◦ . 1460, Manaus 69077-730, Brazil; douglas.castro@ulbra.br
5 Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Universidade do Estado do Amazonas-UEA, Avenida Darcy Vargas
N◦ . 1200, Manaus 69050-020, Brazil; sjunior@uea.edu.br
6 Laboratory of Catalyst Preparation and Catalytic Cracking, Section of Chemical Engineering, Instituto Militar
de Engenharia-IME, Praça General Tibúrcio N◦ . 80, Rio de Janeiro 22290-270, Brazil;
pablo.oliveira@ime.eb.br (P.H.A.O.); luiz@ime.eb.br (L.E.P.B.)
* Correspondence: machado@ufpa.br; Tel.: +55-91-984-620-325
Abstract: The objective of this study is to analyze the economic viability of municipal household
solid waste (organic matter + paper) for the production of gas, coke and biofuel through the pyrolysis
and distillation process. The waste was collected in the city of Belém do Pará-Brazil and pretreated
at the Federal University of Pará. The analyzed fraction (organic matter + paper) was subjected
to the pretreatment of drying, crushing, and sieving and was subsequently subjected to proximate
characterization and, finally, pyrolysis of the organic fraction (organic matter + paper) in a fixed
bed reactor. Initially, it was necessary to review the literature, and with the yields obtained by
pyrolysis of the fraction, economic feasibility analyses were carried out. The economic indicators for
evaluating the most viable pyrolysis process were basic payback, discounted payback, net present
value, internal rate of return, and profitability index, which are all financial metrics commonly used in
investment analysis and decision making. These metrics provide valuable insights into the financial
viability and attractiveness of investment projects. They are essential tools for assessing the feasibility
and profitability of various ventures, helping decision-makers make informed choices in allocating
resources. The analysis of the indicators showed the economic viability considering an analysis
horizon of 10 years of materials based on organic material and paper. The breakeven point obtained
was USD 0.96/dm3 and the minimum biofuel sales price found in this project was USD 1.30/dm3 .
The sensitivity research found that material costs (organic matter + paper), bio-oil yield, total project
investment and electricity, respectively, are the variables that most affect the minimum biofuel sales
price.
Keywords: municipal household solid waste; pyrolysis; biofuels; economic analysis; technical
feasibility

Energies 2024, 17, 269. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17010269 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2024, 17, 269 2 of 19

1. Introduction
The production of urban solid waste (MSW) has increased exponentially over the
years. Taking into account this growth, public policies, laws, federal and international
agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris agreement and more recently the Sustain-
able Development Goals (SDGs) established by the United Nations (UN) have emerged to
establish criteria and limits for a previously unrestrained generation. The increase in waste
generation and inadequate management from production to final disposal have generated
numerous problems for society and the global scenario, aggravated by inadequate material
management, generating negative impacts at a social, environmental, economic and even
public health level [1,2].
According to the current consumer goods production scenario, MSW production
will increase worldwide and is estimated to reach 3.4 billion tons by 2050, mainly due to
population growth, increasing average incomes and accelerating urbanization rates [3,4].
Solid waste management affects everyone, but those who are most compromised by the
negative impacts of poor management of this service are, in most cases, the most vulnerable
in society. The dominant development model traditionally follows a linear economic
approach called extract, produce and suppress. Efforts to optimize linear management
practices are generally limited to the Rs of sustainability (rethink, reject, reduce, reuse and
recycle), without considering the great potential to maximize the value of solid waste [5].
Distinct from traditional approach, which still eliminates waste in an environmentally
inappropriate way, we present the circular economy, which seeks to maximize the value
of using materials through the creation of a closed-loop economy. In other words, it is
a regenerative system that minimizes resource input and waste by slowing, closing and
narrowing the cycle, which can be achieved through maintenance, repair, reuse, recovery
and recycling of materials [6–8].
Distinct from the traditional approach, which still eliminates waste in an environmen-
tally inappropriate way, we present the circular economy, which seeks to maximize the
value of using materials through the creation of a closed-loop economy. In other words, it
is a regenerative system that minimizes resource input and waste by slowing, closing and
narrowing the cycle, and this can be achieved through maintenance, repair, reuse, recovery
and recycling of materials [8].
This reflection coincides with a new concept of urban planning that has emerged in
recent decades, which proposes a change in models of spatial, social and environmental
organization, which are “sustainable cities”, also called “green cities” or “smart green
cities”. Urban waste management is a fundamental factor in this new urban vision; however,
unless these new paradigms are enshrined in legislation, they will not drive real changes
in urban planning and little progress will be made towards the recommended sustainable
management [9].
With these changes in mind, the National Solid Waste Policy (PNRS) was sanctioned
in Brazil, created by law 12.305/10 to regulate the management of urban waste. This law is
very broad, with modern concepts, including shared product life cycle and reverse logistics.
It places responsibility on producers and government agencies for the production and
proper disposal of waste. However, even after its introduction, the remaining challenges
are significant. Many municipalities do not comply with the requirements, especially when
it comes to eliminating open dumps [10].
Among the many factors that impede these adjustments, one is the high cost of
environmentally appropriate management of this waste. Currently, municipalities have
limited budgetary resources and municipal accounts are difficult to balance [11].
In Brazil, MSW management is the third expense item in the budget of medium-sized
municipalities, and may correspond to the main expense in municipalities with more than
50 thousand inhabitants [12].
In addition to the strong demand for public resources necessary for solid waste
management, the economic situation of Brazilian municipalities stands out. Low capacity
Energies 2024, 17, 269 3 of 19

to generate revenues to finance administrative structures and services, together with high
budgetary rigor are considered the elements of a structural financial crisis [13].
However, solutions must be discussed and implemented to mitigate the factors that
hinder the adequate management of urban solid waste. We know that implementing correct
management is not an easy task, as it involves multiple social actors, whether they are
individuals or legal entities, public or private, who are directly or indirectly responsible
for the solutions [14]. Additionally, there is a need to understand that some definitions
contained in the PNRS are fundamental for a better basis in decision making, as mentioned
in verbis (article 3 of the PNRS):
“VII—environmentally appropriate final destination: waste destination that includes
reuse, recycling, COMPOSTING, RECOVERY AND ENERGY USE or other destinations
admitted by the competent bodies of Sisnama, SNVS and Suasa, including final disposal,
observing specific operational standards in order to avoid damage or risks to public health
and safety and to minimize adverse environmental impacts;
VIII—environmentally appropriate final disposal: orderly distribution of WASTE in
landfills, observing specific operational standards in order to avoid damage or risks to
public health and safety and minimize adverse environmental impacts;
XV—waste: solid waste that, after exhausting all possibilities of treatment and recovery
using AVAILABLE AND ECONOMICALLY VIABLE TECHNOLOGICAL PROCESSES,
does not present any other possibility than environmentally appropriate final disposal;
XVI—solid waste: discarded material, substance, object or good resulting from human
activities in society, whose final disposal is carried out, is proposed to be carried out or is
obliged to be carried out, in solid or semi-solid states, as well as gases contained in con-
tainers and liquids whose particularities make their release into the public sewage system
or bodies of water unfeasible, or require solutions that are technically or economically
unfeasible in the face of the best available technology;”
Based on the definitions of solid waste, rejects, final destination and final disposal,
the PNRS clearly states that any new treatment system implemented must meet the basic
process guidelines before final disposal of the waste. This basic sequence can be described
as follows: All waste must be reused and/or treated and only waste from these processes
can be deposited in landfills. It is important to respect the criteria defined by the PNRS to
become a final destination and ensure greater reintegration of waste into the production
system, always respecting the technical feasibility and economic and financial viability of
the projects [15].
There are several technologies currently available for the treatment and conversion of
urban solid waste, including biological, physical–chemical and thermal treatments. As a
heat treatment method, pyrolysis can transform materials such as waste biomass, thermo-
plastic polymers, hard and soft plastics, cardboard, recycled and nonrecycled paper, organic
materials and municipal solid waste. A large amount of research in the literature delves into
this subject. Bioprocesses and other thermochemical processes, such as the manufacture
of liquid fuels and charcoal, a solid phase with adsorbent properties, have advantages of
pyrolysis. The process also produces non-condensable gases with combustion properties
and occurs at moderate ambient temperatures and pressures [16–18].
In this scenario, the present work analyzed the economic viability of producing bio-
fuels (bio-oil, bio-coal and gas) by pyrolysis and catalytic thermal cracking of the fraction
(organic matter + paper) of municipal household solid waste (MSW) from the Municipality
of Belém-Pará-Brazil.
Recently, some work has been carried out to evaluate the economic viability of pro-
ducing biofuels from the most diverse types of waste through the pyrolysis process. A
summary of the latest works cited in the literature is listed below.
In a previous study [19], a facility was established for the technical and environmental
evaluation of implementing pyrolysis in the treatment of hospital waste (RSS) in the city
of Lindo Horizonte. Productivity 3000 L RSS per cycle. The evaluation process showed
several benefits in waste management, such as mass reduction of 46.75–58.77% and the
Energies 2024, 17, 269 4 of 19

use of low-cost supplementary fuel (biomass) in wastewater treatment plants. From an

economic point of view, it seems possible to produce bio-oil from pyrolysis to be sold at
prices similar to mineral oils. This possibility is greater if comparatively large installations
are used and if it is possible to sell the bio-oil at a price lower than that of distilled fuel
oil but higher than the price of residual fuel oil. In January 2017, the ideal price would be
between USD 1.119 and USD 2.632 per liter.
Already in [20] the thermal treatment of solid hospital waste (RSH) using a pyrolysis
catalyst resulted in an oil content of 67.5% by weight, a density of 0.82 kg/L and a viscosity
of 2318 mm2 /s. These characteristics allow it to be used as a fuel in thermal processes or to
create electrical energy in internal combustion engines. The production result expressed
in money was verified with an economic balance comparing the two income-generating
alternatives. The final balance (result of revenue subtracted from operating costs) from the
sale of oil was estimated at R$3968.58/t (corresponding to 2678.79 R$/t RSH). Revenue from
the sale of electrical energy was calculated by taking as a reference the sales value of MWhe
of electrical energy produced from a renewable source (combustion of sugarcane bagasse).
In this case, the revenue from the sale of electricity was calculated at R$2896.94 R$/t
(corresponding to 1955.43 R$/t of RSH). Consequently, oil sales are economically more
attractive than electricity sales, as they provide higher revenues than electricity sales, of
1071.64 R$/t, that is, 723.36 R$/t of RSH.
In [21], it can be concluded that the slow pyrolysis process using urban solid waste
(MSW) offers many advantages not only for the city of Mossoró but also for other forms
of treatment and use in environmental and economic terms, which applies to most Brazil-
ian municipalities. The aforementioned municipality served as a basis for making an
approximate estimate of the financial gains with the possible installation of a pyrolysis
plant capable of processing 30% of the MSW generated per day, receiving 3,941,586.0 R$
per year from the sale of the energy, biofuels and coal produced, saving approximately
5623,393.50 R$ over the plant’s 25-year useful life.
This study [22] estimates the energy efficiency product costs and environmental
impacts of biomass pyrolysis oil using life cycle assessment (LCA). As a case study, a
factory with an annual production of 10,000 t was selected that uses Cryptomeria (Japanese
cedar) as a raw material. The results show that production occupies the majority of the
biomass oil life cycle, regardless of input costs, energy consumption or environmental
impact. Pyrolysis oil costs approximately USD 9.74/dm3 (including bio-char) and the
selling price (assuming 17% corporate income tax and 7% internal rate of return) is 19.6%
higher than that of an equivalent amount of energy from low sulfur fuel oil. The ratio
of output energy to input energy is approximately 13.2 (including biochar) or 7.3 (not
including biochar), which indicates the high energy efficiency of pyrolysis oil.
This study’s [23] goal is to perform a thorough economic analysis of the thermal
catalysis process used on palm oil neutralization sludge and crude palm oil. Additionally
provided are the biofuel yields produced by fractional distillation. By examining the
important variables and indicators, the thermo-catalytic processes of CPO and PONS are
shown to be economically viable for both crude palm oil (Elaeis guineensis, Jacq) and palm
oil neutralization sludge. This study establishes USD 1.59/dm3 for crude palm oil and
USD 1.34/dm3 for residual neutralization of palm oil as the minimum fuel selling price for
biofuels. Taking into account the residual neutralization of palm oil, USD 1.24/dm3 is the
optimal balance point that was reached.
Given the economic conditions observed towards the close of 2019 and the initial
months of 2020, the technical and economic feasibility of producing bio-oil from the three
suggested biomass sources is evident. The raw material that has been most interesting is
sugarcane bagasse, as it is the most economical raw material. The multifunctional plant
developed in this study had an installation cost of approximately USD 31.40 million and was
shown to be capable of handling these and other biomasses with chemical and biological
properties similar to those of the present study. Considering the raw materials used in this
process individually or a mixture of them, the annual production cost remains between
Energies 2024, 17, 269 5 of 19

USD 18.53 million and USD 80.49 million. In Scenarios 1 (conservative) and 2 (optimistic),
the possibility of circularity between raw materials is presented. The project is viable for
20 years of operation, followed by 3 years of construction. In both situations, these plants
are more profitable than investing in fixed assets with a minimum attractiveness of 25%.
The internal rate of return (IRR) of Scenario 1 was 68% per year, and the internal rate of
return (IRR) of Scenario 2 was 98% per year. The payback time in Scenario 1 was 4.43 years,
considering three years of construction, and in Scenario 2, this time would be reduced to
3.74 years, which is a very good result [24].
We chose coconut biomass due to the large amount of residual biomass in the state
of Alagoas. A total of 33,906.0 tons of biomass were constructed with an energy potential
of approximately 60,800.0 MJ. The energy obtained from the pyrolysis of coconut biomass
is significant, considering that the fresh mesocarp biomass containing a higher calorific
value (PCS) is 17.466 MJ kg−1 , which will produce biochar with PCS of 26,587 MJ kg−1
pyrolysis at 400 ◦ C and PCS 27.020 can be obtained by pyrolysis at 600 ◦ C. Coming from
the natural biomass of the endocarp with a PCS of 19,401 MJ kg−1 , a biochar with a
PCS of 31,062 MJ kg−1 is obtained by pyrolysis at 400 ◦ C and a biochar with a PCS of
32,403 MJ kg−1 is obtained by pyrolysis at 600 ◦ C. The best performance obtained is 56.38%
of bio-oil by pyrolysis of the endocarp at a temperature of 600 ◦ C. Therefore, the best
performance and highest PCS were obtained at a temperature of 600 ◦ C. Energy gains can
reach 4841 MJ kg−1 . The evaluation results with a profit of 6%, NPV of 268,710.0 R$ and
positive IRR of 17.10% suggest the viability of the investment [25].
Going beyond the technical conclusions, compared to the viability of the urban solid
waste treatment unit, the two models investigated, both the slow rotation drum pyrolysis
unit and the pyrolytic gasification unit, are viable. The main thing would be for the
municipalities to be compensated for the treatment of their waste (which already occurs
today) at a value of R$196.48, which the current value makes viable and, in addition,
profitable for the facilities to be installed. This leads us to believe that there is a very
interesting scope for the private sector to enter this area strongly because it is possible to
be profitable with very robust values. Another scenario would be to consider a public
investment where the municipality would have to bear the initial value of the unit and a
minimum value per ton for the projects to be viable; in the case of the 141 t/d unit, it would
be 133.00 R$/t, while a 120 t/d factory R$/t/day would be 88.00 R$/t [26].
Activated carbon is very important in the adsorption process in wastewater treatment
plants. In particular, malt bagasse, a residue from the brewing industry, can be used to
obtain charcoal, which has been applied on an industrial scale to remove drugs from
aqueous systems due to its removal potential. To determine the minimum selling price
of coal per kilogram, I conducted a literature analysis focusing on net present value and
the internal rate of return, with predetermined assumptions. An analysis of a charcoal
production unit from a brewery (on-site) and a bagasse and charcoal supply company
(off-site) resulted in an on-site selling price of USD 1.78/kg and USD 1.84/kg for external
products, both of which confirmed the economic viability of the project. Furthermore, with
an annual production of 108 tons of coal, the costs can be paid with a minimum selling
price of USD 1.78, generating a return of 9% [27].
Even though previous projects developed to evaluate the economic viability of pro-
ducing biofuels from waste through the pyrolysis process presented positive results, the
innovation of this study is its demonstration of the economic viability for the production
of bio-oil from the organic fraction (organic matter + paper) of municipal household solid
waste based on economic indicators, basic payback, discounted payback, net present value
(NPV), internal rate of return (IRR) and profitability index (IL), with the aim of analyzing
the viability of the project. A sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate bio-oil sales prices
(MFSP—“Minimum Fuel Sale Price”), to measure the economic impact of varying the
parameters used in the project analysis, such as initial investment, costs, expenses and
revenues.
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 18

Energies 2024, 17, 269 of varying the parameters used in the project analysis, such as initial investment, 6costs,
of 19
expenses and revenues.

2. Materials and Procedures

2. Materials and Procedures
2.1. Materials
2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Composition
2.1.1. Composition of
of Urban
Urban Solid
Solid Waste
Waste
Theresults
The resultsfrom
fromthethegravimetric
gravimetricanalysis
analysisofofMunicipal
Municipal Solid
Solid Waste
Waste (MSW)
(MSW) gathered
gathered in
in Belém-Pará,
Belém-Pará, Brazil,
Brazil, during
during thethe period
period from
from 18 18
to to
2929 October
October 2021,
2021, areare detailed
detailed inin Table
Table 1
1 below. This table also includes information such as route number, date, collection
below. This table also includes information such as route number, date, collection time, time,
MSW mass,
MSW mass, and
and the
the percentage
percentage breakdown
breakdown of of MSW
MSW fractions
fractions (textiles,
(textiles, aluminum
aluminum foil foil ++
plastic layers + cardboard + plastic caps + bioplastics
plastic layers + cardboard + plastic caps + bioplastics = tetra pack, paper, cardboard, tissue
cardboard, tissue
++masks
masks++ disposable
disposable diapers
diapers++ sanitary
sanitary pads
pads == domestic sanitary
sanitary waste),
waste), along
along with
with other
other
relevantdata
relevant data[28].
[28].

Table1.1.Gravimetric
Table Gravimetricexamination
examinationof
ofMunicipal
MunicipalSolid
SolidWaste
Waste(MSW)
(MSW)[28].
[28].

Date:
Date: 18/10/2021
18/10/2021 Time
Time 20/10/2021
20/10/2021 Time
Time 27/10/2021
27/10/2021 Time
Time 29/10/2021
29/10/2021 Time
Time
Mass of
Mass of MSW
MSW 102.00
102.00
07:30
07:30
106.50
106.50
07:30
07:30
107.25
107.25
07:30
07:30
113.50
113.50
07:30
07:30
Mass Mass Mass Mass
Class of MSW Mass (wt.%) Mass (wt.%) Mass (wt.%) Mass (wt.%)
Class of MSW (wt.%) (wt.%) (wt.%) (wt.%)
(kg)(kg) (kg)
(kg) (kg)
(kg) (kg)
(kg)
Paper 1.00 0.98 2.70 2.54 4.70 4.40 3.70 3.27
Paper 1.00 0.98 2.70 2.54 4.70 4.40 3.70 3.27
Cardboard 2.05 2.01 2.60 2.45 3.60 3.37 2.90 2.56
Cardboard 2.05 2.01 2.60 2.45 3.60 3.37 2.90 2.56
Tetra Pak 1.10 1.08 1.10 1.04 2.05 1.92 0.30 0.26
Tetra Pak 1.10 1.08 1.10 1.04 2.05 1.92 0.30 0.26
Hard Plastic 4.75 4.66 10.25 9.65 2.40 2.25 7.95 6.76
Hard Plastic
Soft Plastic 4.759.65 4.669.47 10.25
4.30 9.65
4.05 2.40
5.90 2.25
5.53 7.95
11.15 6.76
9.85
Soft Metal
Plastic 9.654.80 9.474.71 4.30
1.75 4.05
1.65 5.90
5.50 5.53
5.16 11.15
1.60 9.85
1.41
Organic
MetalMatter 4.8055.50 54.44
4.71 69.95
1.75 65.84
1.65 62.40
5.50 58.50
5.16 76.40
1.60 68.52
1.41
Glass
Organic Matter 9.80
55.50 9.61
54.44 1.60
69.95 1.51
65.84 1.90
62.40 1.78
58.50 0.35
76.40 0.33
68.52
Inert
Glass 13.30
9.80 13.05
9.61 12.00
1.60 11.29
1.51 18.20
1.90 17.06
1.78 8.80
0.35 7.77
0.33
Total 101.95 100.00 106.25 100.00 106.65 100.0 113.15 100.00
Inert 13.30 13.05 12.00 11.29 18.20 17.06 8.80 7.77
Total 101.95 2.1.2.100.00 106.25 (Organic
Organic Fraction 100.00
Matter + 106.65
Paper) 100.0 113.15 100.00

The organic content, comprising a blend of carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, fibers, and
2.1.2.
paper,Organic
derived Fraction (Organic Matter
from Municipal + Paper)
Solid Waste (MSW) in the Municipality of Belém-Pará,
Theunderwent
Brazil, organic content, comprising
pretreatment a blenddrying,
(including of carbohydrates,
crushing, andlipids, proteins,
sieving). fibers, and
Subsequently,
paper,
it wasderived fromin
preserved Municipal Solid
a freezer to Waste
prevent (MSW)
any in the Municipality of
physical–chemical Belém-Pará,
and Brazil,
microbiological
underwent pretreatment
deterioration, (including
following the drying,
procedures crushing,
outlined in theand sieving).
literature [28]Subsequently,
(refer to Figureit was
1).
preserved in a freezer to prevent any physical–chemical and microbiological
The desiccated portion, comprising organic matter and paper, underwent a process deterioration,
following
of crushingtheand
procedures outlined
sieving and in the
was then literature
subjected to [28] (refer tocharacterization
proximate Figure 1). [28].

Figure 1.1. The

Figure The preprocessed
preprocessed organic
organic matter
matter combined
combined with
with paper
paper served
served as
as the
the raw
raw material
material for
for
laboratory-scale thermal processing. The organic matter, post-crushing and sieving, was
laboratory-scale thermal processing. The organic matter, post-crushing and sieving, was retained on retained
aon a 12-mesh
12-mesh sievesieve (a), while
(a), while the amalgamated
the amalgamated organic
organic matter,
matter, after sieving
after sieving with awith
4, 6, a12,
4, and
6, 12,
14and
mesh14
mesh (b), and the organic matter plus paper, following the drying/crushing/sieving process and
(b), and the organic matter plus paper, following the drying/crushing/sieving process and packed in
packed in plastic bags (c), were also prepared [28].
plastic bags (c), were also prepared [28].

The desiccated portion, comprising organic matter and paper, underwent a process of
crushing and sieving and was then subjected to proximate characterization [28].
Energies 2024, 17, 269 7 of 19

2.1.3. Characterization of the Fraction (Organic Matter + Paper)

The desiccated, pulverized, and sifted portion, consisting of organic matter and paper,
underwent proximate characterization to determine lipids, proteins, moisture, ash, pH,
and electrical conductivity. The analysis followed the prescribed methodologies outlined
in AOCS 963.15, AOCS 991.20, AOCS 935.29, ASTM D 3174-04, ASTM D129318, and ASTM
D 1125-14, as described in details elsewhere [28]. The obtained results are detailed in
Table 2 [28].

Table 2. Centesimal analysis was conducted on the dried, crushed, and sieved fraction containing
organic matter and paper to determine the content of lipids, proteins, moisture, ash, pH, and electrical
conductivity [28].

Centesimal Characterization (wt.%)

Lipids 10.41
Proteins 11.33
Moisture 28.74
Ash 6.73
Volatile matter -
Fixed carbon -
Physicochemical characterization
pH, 27.0 ◦ C (-) 5.77
Conductivity, 27.2 ◦ C (µS/m) 15.31

2.2. Pyrolysis of Materials

2.2.1. The Influence of Temperature on the Pyrolysis Process
Table 3 displays the parameters of the process, mass balances, and yields of reaction
products (liquids, solids, H2 O, and gases) generated from the pyrolysis of the MSW fraction
(organic matter + paper) at temperatures of 400, 450, and 475 ◦ C, and atmospheric pressure
on a laboratory scale. The increase in pyrolysis temperature enhances the production of
bio-oil due to the greater energy available for breaking strong organic chemical bonds. The
temperature also significantly influences the distribution of reaction products. The findings
indicate that, at 400 ◦ C, biochar exhibits the highest yield at 45.75% by weight, whereas oil
and gas achieve their highest yields at 475 ◦ C, with percentages of 9.41% by weight and
26.72% by weight, respectively [28].

Table 3. On a laboratory scale, the pyrolysis of the MSW fraction (comprising organic matter and
paper) at temperatures of 400, 450, and 475 ◦ C, and under atmospheric pressure (1.0 atmosphere),
involves the examination of process parameters, mass balances, and the resulting yields of reaction
products, including liquids, solids, H2 O, and gas [28].

0.0% (wt.)
Process Parameters ◦C
400 450 ◦ C 475 ◦ C
Mass of residual fat (g) 50.14 50.29 50.49
Cracking time (min) 70 100 70
Initial cracking
397 348 318
temperature (◦ C)
Mechanical system stirring
0 0 0
speed (rpm)
Energies 2024, 17, 269 8 of 19

Table 3. Cont.

0.0% (wt.)
Process Parameters ◦C
400 450 ◦ C 475 ◦ C
Mass of solid (Coke) (kg) 22.94 19.07 17.82
Mass of liquid (Bio-oil) (kg) 1.32 3.74 4.75
Mass of H2 O (kg) 17.59 17.10 14.43
Mass of gas (kg) 8.29 10.09 13.49
Yield of Bio-oil (wt.%) 2.63 7.43 9.41
Yield of H2 O (wt.%) 35.08 34.00 28.58
Yield of Coke (wt.%) 45.75 37.92 35.29
Yield of Gas (wt.%) 16.54 20.65 26.72

2.2.2. The Impact of the Catalyst on Pyrolysis

Table 4 illustrates the catalytic cracking of the MSW fraction (organic matter + paper)
at 475 ◦ C and 1.0 atmosphere, with catalyst additions of 5.0%, 10.0%, and 15.0% (by weight)
of Ca(OH)2 , conducted on a laboratory scale. The presence of CaO as a catalyst has a
notable impact on the yields of bio-oil, gas, and biochar. An increase in CaO content
enhances bio-oil and gas yields but diminishes the bio-char yield while the H2 O phase
remains consistent. The findings indicate that within the CaO content range of 0.0% to 7.0%
(by weight), the yields of the H2 O phase and biochar remain stable, gas production slightly
increases, and the bio-oil yield decreases [28].

Table 4. Exhibits the parameters of the process, mass distributions, and the outcomes of reaction
product yields (liquids, solids, H2 O, and gas) derived from thermocatalytic cracking of the fraction
(organic matter + paper) at 475 ◦ C, 1.0 atm, with catalyst concentrations of 5.0%, 10.0%, and 15.0%
(by weight) Ca(OH)2 , conducted on a laboratory scale [28].

475 (◦ C)
Process Parameters 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0
(wt.) (wt.) (wt.) (wt.)
Mass of the organic fraction of
50.49 40.0 40.0 40.0
municipal solid waste (g)
Cracking time (min) 70 75 70 70
Initial cracking temperature
318 220 206 268
(◦ C)
Mass of solids (Coke) (kg) 17.82 14.11 13.56 12.16
Mass of liquid (Bio-oil) (kg) 4.75 2.21 2.27 3.16
Mass of H2 O (kg) 14.43 14.15 13.72 13.73
Gas mass (kg) 13.49 9.53 10.45 10.95
Bio-oil yield (by weight) 9.41 5.52 5.67 7.90
H2 O yield (by weight) 28.58 35.37 34.30 34.32
Coke yield (by weight) 35.29 35.27 33.90 30.40
Gas yield (in weight) 26.72 23.82 26.12 27.37

By pyrolysis of the pretreated solid mixture of organic matter + paper, coming from
municipal solid waste (MSW) from the Municipality of Belém-Pará-Brazil, they were treated
in detail by [28]. The increase in pyrolysis temperature results in higher bio-oil yields, as
 Energies 2024, 17, 269 9 of 19

the greater energy availability facilitates the breakdown of robust organic chemical bonds
(Table 4).

2.3. Management and Project Assessment Criteria

R PEER REVIEW Project management is the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and 9 of 18
technicians
to project activities to meet project needs. Project management is carried out through
the application and integration of the following project management processes: initiation,
planning, execution, monitoring and control, and closure [29].
Therefore, for a better understanding
Therefore, of the projectof management
for a better understanding process process
the project management and theand the
assessment of economic viability,
assessment a biofuel
of economic production
viability, flow through
a biofuel production thermalthermal
flow through processing
processing of
pretreated
of pretreated material (organicmaterial (organic
+ paper) was+created,
paper) was ascreated,
shownasinshown
Figurein Figure
2. 2.

Pretreatment

MSW
R. Organic

Transport Selective Separation Drying Milling

R. Paper
Pyrolysis

Collect
Gas Bio-oil Coke

Distillation

Biofuel

Production

Steps for converting

Figure 2. organic
Figure 2. Steps for converting material +organic
papermaterial + paper into biofuel.
into biofuel.
Making decisions on the conception, design and evaluation of an industrial project
Making decisions on the
requires some conception, design
economic criteria [30].and
The evaluation
most effectiveof anisindustrial
way project
to simulate the investment
requires some economic criteria
according [30].
to some The most effective
decision-making way
indicators is to simulate
or economic models,the investment
as described in detail by
according to some decision-making indicators or economic models, as described in detail Value
Amaral et al. [31], such as Basic Payback [31–33], Discounted Payback [30,31], Net Present
(NPV) [30–34], Internal Rate of Return (IRR) [31], and Profitability Index (IL) [31,33,34]. In this
by Amaral et al. [31],way,
such as Basic Payback [31–33], Discounted Payback [30,31], Net Present
the cash flows generated with the investment made are compared. In addition, the
Value (NPV) [30–34],calculation
Internal Rate of Returntaking
methodology, (IRR)into
[31],account
and Profitability Index (IL) [31,33–34].
the main decision-making indicators, must
In this way, the cash flows generated
be proposed with for
and/or constructed theeach
investment made
particular case, are compared.
as described by Amaral et Inal. [31].
addition, the calculation methodology, taking into account the main decision-making
2.4. Calculation Methodology
indicators, must be proposed and/or constructed for each particular case, as described by
All data used to calculate feasibility for decision making on project viability are listed
Amaral et al. [31]. in Table 5.

2.4. Calculation Methodology

All data used to calculate feasibility for decision making on project viability are
listed in Table 5.

Table 5. Data used to calculate economic viability indicators.

Process Parameters Value Unit Reference

Energies 2024, 17, 269 10 of 19

Table 5. Data used to calculate economic viability indicators.

Process Parameters Value Unit Reference

M = is the mass of organic material + paper 2.610 kg/day author
Nsh = number of shifts per day 3 - author
d = density of organic material + paper 1.213 kg/dm3 [35]
Ybio-oil = yield of the bio-oil pyrolysis process 9.41 % [28]
Ycoke = material coke yield in the pyrolysis process 35.29 % [28]
Pcoke = price of coke 0.224 $/kg [31]
dcoke = absolute density of coke 1 × 10−3 kg/dm3 [31]
Ygas = yield of methane gas from the material’s
2672 % [28]
pyrolysis process
PLPG = price of liquefied petroleum gas 0.275 $/dm3 [36]
dgas = density of methane gas 0.72 × 10−3 kg/dm3 [31]
Yd,bio-oil = yield of the material distillate process 60 % author
PRM = raw material price of the material 0.1953 $/kg [37]
Psieve = power of the sieve equipment 0.7457 kW [38]
tsieve = sieving time per day 2 h author
Nsieve = number of sieving batches per day 2 - author
PKWh = price of KWh 0.2186 $/kWh [39]
Pdry = drying equipment power 3 kW [40]
tdry = drying time per day 24 h author
Ndry = number of drying batches per day 5 - author
Pcrus = power of crusher equipment 11 kW [41]
tcrus = crusher time per day 1 h author
Ncrus = number of crusher batches per day 1 - author
mLPG = percentage of liquefied petroleum gas in
10 % [42]
relation to the feed rate
Cm = labor cost in thirty days 2343.7 $/month author
PKWd = distillation column power 5 kW [31]
td = distillation operating time during one day 24 h author
Ndest. = number of distillation batches per day 2 - author
%T = tax percentage 10 % [31]
SPbio = selling price of biofuels produced with organic
1.30 $/dm3 author
material + paper

The data mentioned in Table 5 are parameters used to calculate all possible expenses
and revenues necessary for the production of bio-oil, gas and bio-char from organic
waste + paper.
Expenses and income such as feed, organic liquid product (PLO), solid product (coke),
gaseous product (biogas), distillate biofuel, raw material cost, liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG), cost of manpower, distillation, taxes and profit margin were treated in detail by
Amaral et al. [31], with the following new computation being included in this work:

2.4.1. Sieving

( P sieve × tsieve × Nsieve × Pkwh )

Csieve =
(1)
Dbio + mcoke + m gas
Energies 2024, 17, 269 11 of 19

Csieve = sieving cost [$/dm3 ]; Psieve = power of the sieve equipment [kW]; tsieve = sieving
time per day [h]; Nsieve = number of sieving batches per day [-]; and Pkwh = price of kWh
[$/kWh].

2.4.2. Drying

( P dry × tdry × Ndry × Pkwh
Cdry =
(2)
Dbio + mcoke + m gas
Cdry = drying cost [$/dm3 ]; Pdry = drying equipment power [kW]; tdry = drying time per
day [h]; Ndry = number of drying batches per day [-]; and Pkwh = price of kWh [$/kWh].

2.4.3. Crusher

( Pcrus × tcrus × Ncrus × Pkwh )

Ccrus =
(3)
Dbio + mcoke + m gas
Ccrus = crusher cost [$/dm3 ]; Pcrus = power of the grinding equipment in [kW]; tcrus =
grinding time per day [h]; Ncrus = number of grinding batches per day [-]; and Pkwh = price
of kWh in [$/kWh].

3. Results
Table 6 outlines the financial metrics utilized in the discounted cash flow analysis.
The comprehensive investment for the project amounted to USD 334,552.77. This figure
represents the initial cash flow investment, derived from price survey data for each utilized
equipment and other associated expenses.

Table 6. Financial metrics for conducting discounted cash flow analysis.

Lifespan 10 years
Plant Size/Feeding Rate 2610 kg/day
Discount rate 10 % per year
Financing 100 % own capital
Depreciation - % per year
Investment recovery period 10 years
Taxes 10 %
Start-up - months
Raw material cost 0.1953 $/kg
Plant availability 87.5 %
Plant operating time 7665 h
Reference year 2023
Electricity price 0.2186 $/kWh
Total equipment cost (CTE) 112,793.25 $
Direct costs (include installation of
equipment, instrumentation and
68,803.88 $ (61% CTE)
control, piping, electricity
and buildings)
Energies 2024, 17, 269 12 of 19

Table 6. Cont.

Total equipment installation cost

181,597.13 $ (61% CTE + CTE)
(CTIE)
Storage 2723.96 $ (1.5% CTIE)
Space construction-warehouse 8171.87 $ (4.5% CTIE)
$ (CTIE + warehouse +
Total installation cost (CTI) 192,492.96
space development)
Field Indirect Costs (CI)
- Field expenses 38,498.59 $ (20% CTI)
- Offices and building fees 48,123.24 $ (25% CTI)
- Contingency 5774.79 $ (3% CTI)
- Prominent costs 19,249.30 $ (10% CTI)
Total Capital Investments (ITC) 304,138.88 $ (CTI + CI)
Other costs (start-up, licenses, etc.) 30,413.89 $ (10% ITC)
Total project investment (ITP) 334,552.77 $ (ITC+ other costs)

Table 7 displays the combined revenue, overall expenses, and yearly profit, amounting
to USD 68,063.00. The determined minimum fuel sales price (MFSP) for biofuels in this
study was USD 1.30/dm3 . The previous literature mentioned in this research covers a
range of values spanning from USD 1.11/dm3 to USD 9.74/dm3 .

Table 7. Income and expenses from the use of organic material and paper are computed using the
equation described elsewhere [31].

Revenues
Feed_87.50% (Availability)_Cracking (1) 2151.69 dm3 /day_d = 1.213 kg/m3
PLO product/bio-oil_9.41% (2) 202.47 dm3 /day_Fre. distillation
Solid product (coke)_35.29% (3) 170.55 $/day
Gaseous Product (biogas)_26.72% (4) 11.23 $/day
Biofuel Product Distillation_60% (5) 121.5 $/day
Sale price (6) 1.30 $/dm3
Total expenses (7) = (8) + (9) + (10) + (11) +
1.24 $/dm3
(12) + (13) + (14) + (15)
Raw Material (Neutralization Waste)_1
0.543 $/dm3
$/kg (8)
Sieving (0.7457 kW)_(2T/h) (9) 0.0003 $/dm3
Drying (3 kW)_(0.582 T/h) (10) 0.1118 $/dm3
Crusher (11 kW)_0.425 t/h (11) 0.0026 $/dm3
Liquefied Petroleum Gas
0.063 $/dm3
(LPG)_10% (12)
Energies 2024, 17, 269 13 of 19

Table 7. Cont.

Revenues
Manpower (8MIL) (13) 0.333 $/dm3
Distillation (Heating)_5 kW (14) 0.056 $/dm3
Taxes_10% (15) 0.130 $/dm3
Profit Margin (16) = (6)–(7) 0.06 $/dm3
Total Profit 189.1 $/day
Month 5672 $/month
Year 68,063 $/year

Table 8 illustrates the cash flow for investment analysis, applying the basic payback
criterion. The outcome indicates that the complete recovery of the investment, amounting
to USD 5761.14, is achieved by the fifth year. Consequently, within the 10-year analysis
horizon, the project is deemed economically viable.

Table 8. Yearly cash flow related to organic material and paper for basic payback analysis.

Year 0 1 2 3 4 5
Cash flow −334,552.77 68,062.78 68,062.78 68,062.78 68,062.78 68,062.78
Accumulated
−33,452.77 −266,489.98 −198,427.20 −130,364.42 −62,301.64 5761.14
value
Year 6 7 8 9 10
Cash flow 68,062.78 68,062.78 68,062.78 68,062.78 68,062.78
Accumulated
73,823.92 141,886.70 209,949.49 278,012.27 346,075.05
value

Table 9 displays the cash flow pertaining to the investment analysis, incorporating the
discounted payback criterion, net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and
the profitability index (IL). Utilizing the discounted payback criterion, it is determined that
by the eighth year, the investment is fully recouped, considering a 10% per annum cash
flow discount rate. This renders the project economically viable, as the analysis horizon for
project evaluation extends over 10 years. In the context of the NPV criterion, it is ascertained
that by the tenth year, there is a cumulative capital increase of USD 83,663.56 in profit, with
a 10% per annum cash flow discount rate. This underscores the economic viability of the
project, as the NPV remains positive by the eighth year within the 10-year analysis horizon.
The internal rate of return (IRR) criterion indicates that for the 10-year analysis horizon,
the obtained value is 15.55%, simulating the cash flow discount rate in Table 10 up to the
moment when the NPV tends to zero in the last year of analysis, surpassing the project’s
minimum attractiveness rate of 10% per annum. This signifies the economic viability of the
project. Lastly, the profitability index (IL) yields a value of 1.25, calculated by adding the
initial investment (USD −334,552.7) to the NPV (USD 83,663.56) and dividing by the initial
investment. This signifies that for every dollar invested in the project, a return of USD 1.25
is anticipated. According to the criteria of this index, the project is deemed economically
viable.
Energies 2024, 17, 269 14 of 19

Table 9. Yearly cash flow generated from the pyrolysis of organic material + paper, involving the
production of bio-oil, coke, and bio-gas, along with the application of discounted payback analysis
and net present value assessment.

Year 0 1 2 3 4 5
Cash flow −334,552.7 68,062.78 68,062.78 68,062.78 68,062.78 68,062.78
Present value −334,552.77 61,875.26 56,250.23 51,136.57 46,487.80 42,261.63
Accumulated
−334,552.77 −272,677.51 −216,427.28 −165,290.70 −118,802.91 −76,541.27
value
Year 6 7 8 9 10
Cash flow 68,062.78 68,062.78 68,062.78 68,062.78 68,062.78
Present value 38,419.67 34,926.97 31,751.79 28,865.26 26,241.15
Accumulated
−38,121.61 −3194.64 28,557.15 57,422.41 83,663.56
value

Table 10. Yearly cash flow resulting from the pyrolysis of organic material + paper, encompassing the
production of bio-petroleum, coke, and biogas, along with an analysis of the internal rate of return.

Year 0 1 2 3 4 5
Cash flow −334,552.77 68,062.78 68,062.78 68,062.78 68,062.78 68,062.78
Present value −334,552,77 58,903.42 50,976.65 44,116.61 38,179.73 33,041.80
Accumulated
−334,552.77 −275,649.35 −224,672.70 −180,556.09 −142,376.36 −109,334.56
value
Year 6 7 8 9 10
Cash flow 68,062.78 68,062.78 68,062.78 68,062.78 68,062.78
Present value 28,595.29 24,747.16 21,416.88 18,534.76 16,040.49
Accumulated −80,739.27 −55,992.11 −34,575.23 −16,040.48 0.02
value

Figure 3 represents the sensitivity analysis conducted for a fraction volume of

2151.69 dm3 /day. In order to attain the fuel minimum fuel selling price (MFSP) of USD
1.30/dm3 , an assumed internal rate of return (IRR) of 10% is applied. It is concluded that
the cost of material (organic matter + paper), bio-oil yield, total project investment and
electricity, respectively, are the most significant variables that affect the MFSP.
Figure 4 demonstrates that the increase in the yield of bio-oil in the pyrolysis results in
a reduction of the MFSP. It is evident that percentages of 5% of bio-oil yield increase the
MFSP to USD 1.45/dm3 , while the improvement of the percentage of bio-oil yield to 15%
reduces the MFSP to values below USD 1.19/dm3 .
Figure 5 illustrates the Minimum Fuel Selling Price (MFSP) in relation to material
cost through sensitivity analysis for a daily production volume of 2151.69 dm3 /day of the
fraction. Simultaneously, Figure 6 portrays the MFSP as a function of electricity through
sensitivity analysis for the same daily production volume. Both graphs demonstrate that
increasing material cost and increasing energy value result in an increase in MFSP. Figure 5
demonstrates that when the material cost reaches USD 0.14/kg, the MFSP reaches USD
1.12/dm3 and when the material has a higher cost, close to USD 0.25/kg, the MFSP also
increases, now to USD 1.48/dm3 . Figure 6 demonstrates that when the value of electricity
is reduced to around USD 0.10/kWh, the MFSP is reduced to USD 1.20/dm3 (a value
extremely close to that applied in Brazil to biofuels), when electricity reaches a value of
USD 0.31/kWh, the MFSP increases the exponentiation to USD 1.40/dm3 .
OR PEER Energies
REVIEW 2024, 17, 269 14 of 1815 of 19

Figure 3. Sensitivity analysis for 2151.69 dm3/day; To achieve the fuel MFSP of USD 1.30
IRR of 10% is assumed.

Figure 4 demonstrates that the increase in the yield of bio-oil in the pyrolysis
in a reduction of the MFSP. It is evident that percentages of 5% of bio-oil yield i
the MFSP
Figure 3. Sensitivity analysis
Figure for to USD
2151.69
3. Sensitivity 1.45/dm
dm 3/day;
analysis
3, while
To achieve
for 2151.69 thethe
dm3 /day; improvement
To fuel MFSP
achieve of of
the fuel the1.30/dm
USD
MFSP ofpercentage
3, an 3of
USD 1.30/dm , anbio-oil
IRR of 10% is assumed.15% reduces the MFSP to values below USD 1.19/dm .
IRR of 10% is assumed. 3

Figure 4 demonstrates that the increase in the yield of bio-oil in the pyrolysis results
in a reduction of the MFSP. It is evident that percentages of 5% of bio-oil yield increase
the MFSP to USD 1.45/dm3, while the improvement of the percentage of bio-oil yield to
15% reduces the MFSP to values below USD 1.19/dm3.

Minimum
Figure 4. 4.
Figure MinimumFuel Selling
Fuel Price in relation
Selling Priceto the
in sensitivity
relation analysis
to the ofsensitivity
bio-oil yield, considering
analysis of bio-o
a daily production of 2151.69 dm3 /day.
considering a daily production of 2151.69 dm /day. 3

Figure 5 illustrates the Minimum Fuel Selling Price (MFSP) in relation to mate
through sensitivity analysis for a daily production volume of 2151.69 dm3/day
Figure 4. Minimum fraction.
Fuel SellingSimultaneously, Figure
Price in relation 6 portrays
to the theanalysis
sensitivity MFSP as of abio-oil
function of electricity t
yield,
sensitivity
considering a daily production of analysis
2151.69 dmfor3/day.
the same daily production volume. Both graphs demonstr
increasing material cost and increasing energy value result in an increase in MFSP
5 demonstrates
Figure 5 illustrates the Minimum that when
Fuel the material
Selling cost in
Price (MFSP) reaches USD
relation 0.14/kg, cost
to material the MFSP reach
through sensitivity1.12/dm
analysis and
3 for awhen
dailythe material has
production a higher
volume cost, close
of 2151.69 dm to3 USD
/day of 0.25/kg,
the the MF
increases,
fraction. Simultaneously, now6 to
Figure USD 1.48/dm
portrays the MFSP3. Figure 6 demonstrates
as a function that when
of electricity throughthe value of ele
sensitivity analysis is
forreduced
the sametodailyaround USD 0.10/kWh,
production volume. theBothMFSP
graphs is demonstrate
reduced to USD that 1.20/dm3 (
increasing material extremely close to that
cost and increasing energyapplied
valueinresult
Brazilinto
anbiofuels),
increase inwhen
MFSP. electricity
Figure reaches a v
5 demonstrates thatUSD when 0.31/kWh, the MFSP
the material increases
cost reaches USDthe0.14/kg,
exponentiation
the MFSPtoreaches
USD 1.40/dm
USD 3.
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 18
Energies 2024, 17, 269 16 of 19

Figure 5. Minimum Fuel Selling Price in relation to material cost through sensitivity an
Figure
Figure Minimum
5. 5.Minimum
considering Fuel
a specific
Fuel Selling
production
Selling Price
Price in in
volume relation
relation to material
ofto2151.69 dm
material 3cost
cost through
/day.
through sensitivity
sensitivity analysis,
analysis,
considering a specific production volume 3 /day.
considering a specific production volume ofof 2151.69
2151.69 dmdm
3/day.

Figure 6. Minimum Fuel Selling Price relative to electricity through sensitivity analysis for
production, taking into account a specific production volume of 2151.69 dm3/day.

Figure 6. Minimum Fuel Selling Price relative to electricity through sensitivity analysis for production,
Figure
Figure 7 illustrates the
6. Minimum Fuelrelationship between
Selling Price minimum
relative fuel sellingthrough
to electricity price (MFSP) and
sensitivity analy
taking into account a specific production volume of 2151.69 dm3 /day.
project investment
production, takingthrough sensitivity
into account analysis,
a specific considering
production a specific
volume of production
2151.69 dmvolume
3/day.
of 2151.69 dm37/day
Figure of the fraction.
illustrates The chart
the relationship illustrates
between that augmenting
minimum theprice
fuel selling overall project
(MFSP) and
investment
project leads
investment to a rise
throughin the minimum
sensitivity fuel
analysis, selling price
considering (MFSP).
a specificFigure 7
production indicates
volume
Figure 7 illustrates the relationship between minimum fuel selling price (MFSP
that when the
of 2151.69 dmtotal
3 /dayproject
of theinvestment is chart
fraction. The diminished to approximately
illustrates that augmenting [insert value],project
the overall the
project
MFSP investment
experiences a through
corresponding sensitivity
reduction analysis,
USD considering
304,892.0, the MFSP areduced
is specifictoproduction
USD v
investment leads to a rise in the minimum fuel selling price (MFSP). Figure 7 indicates
ofthat
2151.69
1.20/dm 3 and
when dm
the a/day
for3total of investment
project theinvestment
project fraction. The
of around chart
USDillustrates
is diminished 364,213.00, that
the augmenting
MFSP
to approximately is increased
[insert the
value], to overall p
the
investment
USD
MFSP1.42/dm 3 .leadsato
experiences a rise in the
corresponding minimum
reduction fuel selling
USD 304,892.0, priceis(MFSP).
the MFSP reduced toFigure
USD 7 ind
3 and for a project investment of around USD 364,213.00, the MFSP is increased to
that when
1.20/dm the total project investment is diminished to approximately [insert valu
USD 1.42/dm 3.
MFSP experiences a corresponding reduction USD 304,892.0, the MFSP is reduced t
1.20/dm and for a project investment of around USD 364,213.00, the MFSP is increa
3

USD 1.42/dm3.
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 18
Energies 2024, 17, 269 17 of 19

Figure
Figure 7. Minimum
Minimumfuel fuelselling
selling price
price (MFSP)
(MFSP) in connection
in connection with project
with project investment
investment throughthrough
sensitiv-
sensitivity analysis,
ity analysis, considering
considering a specific
a specific production
production volumevolume of 2151.69
of 2151.69 dm3/day.
dm3 /day.

Operatingcost,
Operating cost,payback
paybackperiod,
period,andandbreak-even
break-evenanalysis
analysisare
areused
usedto toinvestigate
investigatethe the
relationshipsbetween
relationships betweenplanned
plannedproject
project cost
costand
andrate
rateof
ofreturn.
return.The
Thebreak-even
break-evenpoint pointisisthe
the
point at which
point whichtotal
totalcost
costand total
and revenue
total revenue are equal, whichwhich
are equal, meansmeans
there isthere
a balance
is a between
balance
revenue and
between expenses
revenue and [43]. From this
expenses [43].condition,
From this wecondition,
obtained the
weproject’s
obtained breakeven point
the project’s
value of USD 0.96/dm 3
breakeven point value of. USD 0.96/dm . 3

4.4.Conclusions
Conclusions
Afterusing
After usingthetheproject
projectevaluation
evaluationcriteria
criteria(basic
(basicand
anddiscounted
discountedpayback,
payback,NPV,
NPV,IRR
IRR
and IL) and understanding the process of using pyrolysis, we can guarantee
and IL) and understanding the process of using pyrolysis, we can guarantee the economic the economic
viability of
viability of using
using urban
urban solid
solid waste
waste (organic
(organic material
materialand and paper)
paper) for
for the
the production
production ofof
biogas, coke and biofuels. This result corroborates a secondary cause of this work, which
biogas, coke and biofuels. This result corroborates a secondary cause of this work, which
is to provide an adequate, profitable and environmentally correct destination for urban
is to provide an adequate, profitable and environmentally correct destination for urban
solid waste, avoiding the traditional MSW treatment process of Brazilian municipalities,
solid waste, avoiding the traditional MSW treatment process of Brazilian municipalities,
which collect non-selectively and allocate a large part to open dumps, without any prior
which collect non-selectively and allocate a large part to open dumps, without any prior
treatment, further increasing local basic sanitation problems.
treatment, further increasing local basic sanitation problems.
For the project developed, the initial investment was USD 334,552.77 with an annual
For the project developed, the initial investment was USD 334,552.77 with an annual
profit of USD 68,063.00 for a minimum fuel sales price (MFSP) of USD 1.30/dm3 , compatible
profit of USD 68,063.00 for a minimum fuel sales price (MFSP) of USD 1.30/dm3,
with both the value established in the Brazilian market and in the literature cited in this
compatible with both the value established in the Brazilian market and in the literature
work (USD 1.11 to 9.74/dm3 ).
cited in this work (USD 1.11 to 9.74/dm3).
Considering the project evaluation criteria, the amount initially invested was fully
Considering the project evaluation criteria, the amount initially invested was fully
recovered in 8 years according to the discounted payback criteria, corroborating the viability
recovered in 8 years according to the discounted payback criteria, corroborating the
of the project.
viability of
Finally,the
toproject.
reach the MFSP of USD 1.30/dm3 of fuel, a sensitivity analysis was carried
out for a productionthe
Finally, to reach of MFSP ofdm
USD 1.30/dm 3 of fuel, a sensitivity analysis was carried
2151.69 3 /day of the studied fraction, being the cost of the
out for a production
material, bio-oil yield,oftotal
2151.69 dm3/day
investment of electricity
and the studied fraction,
as the being that
parameters the cost
mostofaffect
the
material,
the MFSP.bio-oil yield, total investment and electricity as the parameters that most affect
the MFSP.
Author Contributions: The individual contributions of all the co-authors are provided as follows:
Author
B.F.F.R.Contributions:
contributed with The individual
formal contributions
analysis and writingoforiginal
all the co-authors are provided
draft preparation, as follows:
investigation and
B.F.F.R. contributed
methodology, A.R.A. with formal analysis
contributed and writing
with formal original
analysis, draft preparation,
investigation investigation
and methodology, and
F.P.d.C.A.
methodology, A.R.A.
contributed with contributed
investigation andwith formal analysis,
methodology, investigation
L.P.B. contributed and
with methodology,
investigation andF.P.d.C.A.
methodol-
contributed with investigation and methodology, L.P.B. contributed with investigation
ogy, M.C.S. contributed with investigation and methodology, N.M.M. contributed with resources and
methodology, M.C.S. contributed with investigation and methodology, N.M.M. contributed
and chemical analysis, J.A.R.P. contributed with resources, D.A.R.d.C. contributed with investigation, with
resources and and
methodology, chemical analysis,
chemical J.A.R.P.
analysis, S.D.J.contributed
contributed with resources,and
with resources D.A.R.d.C.
chemicalcontributed with
analysis, P.H.A.O.
investigation, methodology, and chemical analysis, S.D.J. contributed with resources and chemical
Energies 2024, 17, 269 18 of 19

contributed with chemical analysis, L.E.P.B. contributed with resources and chemical analysis, and
N.T.M. contributed with supervision, conceptualization, and data curation. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Acknowledgments: I would like to acknowledge and dedicate this research in memory to Hélio da
Silva Almeida, he at the Faculty of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering/UFPa, and passed away
on 13 March 2021. His contagious joy, dedication, intelligence, honesty, seriousness, and kindness
will always be remembered in our hearts.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Simões, A.L.G.; Polastri, P.; Vereschini, D.T.; Gimenes, M.L.; Schalch, V. Panoama Geral dos Residuos Sólifos Urbanos no Âmbito
Mundial 2019; Derpatamento de Egenharia Química, Universidade Estadual de Mirangá: Maringá, Brazil, 2019.
2. Pinto, W.L.H.; Moraes, C.S.B.; Capparol, D.C.A.; Oliveira, J.C.; Ansanelli, S.L.M.; Dilphine, L.M. Prosposta de Indicadores de
Sustentabilidade para Gestão De Residuos Solidos. Braz. Appl. Sci. Rev. 2020, 4, 70–111. [CrossRef]
3. Filho, C.; Appelqvist, B. O Futuro do Setor de Gestão de Resíduos: Tendências, Oportunidades e Desafios a Década; Equipe da ISWA:
Paraná, Brazil, 2020.
4. Lima, U.T.G.M.; da Silva, G.L.; Sobral, M.D.C.M. DA GESTÃO DE RESÍDUOS À ECONOMIA CIRCULAR: MAXIMIZANDO O
VALOR DO RESÍDUO. In Proceedings of the 5º Congresso Sul-americano de Resíduos Sólidos e Sustentabilidade, Gramado,
Brazil, 18–20 May 2022.
5. Ness, D. Sustainable urban infrastructure in China: Towards a Factor 10 improvement in resource productivity through integrated
infrastructure systems. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2018, 15, 288–3011.
6. Geisendorf, S.; Pietrulla, F. The circular economy and circular economic concepts—A literature analysis and redefinition.
Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2017, 60, 265485. [CrossRef]
7. Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.M.P.; Hultink, E.J. The Circular Economy e A new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod.
2016, 143, 757–768. [CrossRef]
8. Kirchherr, J.; Reike, D.; Hekkert, M.; De Oliveira, I.A. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 127, 221–232. [CrossRef]
9. Zago, V.C.P.; de Vasconcelos Barros, R.T. Management of solid organic in Brazil: From legal ordinance to reality. Eng. Sanit.
Ambient. 2019, 24, 219–228. [CrossRef]
10. Meireles, J.F. O Planejamento Urbano na Gestão de Resíduos Sólidos e Mudanças Climáticas. Pleiade 2023, 17, 5–12.
11. Fernanda Greco Laureano. Como os municípios cobram pelo lixo? Um diagnóstico sobre a taxa para manejo de resíduos sólidos
urbanos dos municípios do Rio de Janeiro. Rev. Bras. De Planej. E Desenvolv. 2023, 12, 28–54. [CrossRef]
12. Federação das Indústrias do Estado d, o Rio De Janeiro—Firjan. Índice Firjan De Gestão Fiscal 2019; Firjan: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
2012–2019; Bienal; Available online: https://www.firjan.com.br/data/files/8F/50/19/81/B2E1E610B71B21E6A8A809C2/IFGF-
2019_estudo-completo.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2022).
13. Dourado, J.; Toneto Junior, R.; Saiani, C.C.S. Resíduos Sólidos no Brasil: Oportunidades e Desafios da lei Federal nº 12.305 (lei de Resíduos
Sólidos); Manole: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2014.
14. de Miranda, R.L.; Soares, A.R. A look at the sustainability of the municipalities of rondônia through the lens of municipal solid
waste management. Rev. Livre Sustentabilidade Empreendedorismo 2023, 8, 187–210.
15. ABRELPE-Associação Brasileira De Empresas De Limpeza Pública E Resíduos Especiais. Panorama de Resíduos Sólidos no Brasil
2012. Available online: http://a3p.jbrj.gov.br/pdf/ABRELPE%20%20Panorama2012.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2022).
16. Lohri, C.R.; Diener, S.; Zabaleta, I.; Mertenat, A.; Zurbrügg, C. Tecnologias de tra-tamento de biorresíduos sólidos urbanos para
criação de produtos de valor: Uma revisão com foco em cenários de baixa e média renda. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2017, 16,
81–130. [CrossRef]
17. Ding, Y.; Zhao, J.; Liu, J.-W.; Zhou, J.; Cheng, L.; Zhao, J.; Shao, Z.; Iris, Ç.; Pan, B.; Li, X.; et al. Uma revisão dos resíduos sólidos
urbanos (RSU) da China e comparação com regiões interna-cionais: Gestão e tecnologias em tratamento e utilização de recursos.
J. Produção Mais Limpa 2021, 293, 126144.
18. Miskolczi, N.; Ates, F.; Borsodi, N. Comparação da pirólise de resíduos reais (RSU e MPW) em reator em batelada sobre diferentes
catalisadores. Parte II: Propriedades de contaminantes, carvão e óleo de pirólise. Tecnol. Biorecursos 2013, 144, 370–379.
19. Leme, G.R.; Fernandes, D.M.; Lopes, C.L. Use of Pyrolysis for Waste Treatment in Brazil; Universidade Tecnológica Federal Do
Paraná, Medianeira: Pará, Brazil, 2017.
20. Hauschild, T.; Basegio, T.; Kappler, G.; Bender, F.; Bergmam, C. Produção de Òleo por Meio de Pirólise Catalítica. Available
online: https://www.editorarealize.com.br/editora/anais/conepetro/2021/TRABALHO_EV147_MD1_SA_ID216_170520211
72851.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2022).
Energies 2024, 17, 269 19 of 19

21. de Oliveira, L.F.N. Análise Da Viabilidade Econômica E Especificações Técnicas De Um Processo De Pirólise Lenta 2018; Universidade
Federal Rural do Semi-Árido: Mossoró, Brazil, 2018.
22. Ning, S.-K.; Hung, M.-C.; Chang, B.Y.-H.; Wan, H.-P.; Lee, H.-T.; Shih, R.-F. Benefit assessment of cost, energy, and environment
for biomass pyrolysis oil. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 59, 141–149. [CrossRef]
23. Amaral, A.R.; Bernar, L.P.; Ferreira, C.C.; Pereira, A.M.; Dos Santos, W.G.; Pereira, L.M.; Santos, M.C.; Assunção, F.P.d.C.;
Mendonça, N.M.; Pereira, J.A.R.; et al. Economic Analysis of Thermal–Catalytic Process of Palm Oil (Elaeis guineesensis, Jacq) and
Soap Phase Residue from Neutralization Process of Palm Oil (Elaeis guineensis, Jacq). Energies 2023, 16, 492. [CrossRef]
24. Bittencourt, F.P. Simulação E Análise Técnico-Econômica De Uma Planta De Pirólise Multipropósito Para Obtenção De Bio-Óleo A Partir
De Diferentes Biomassas; Universidade Federal Fluminense: Niterói, Brazil, 2018.
25. da Mota Silveira, A.J. Viabilidade Técnica da Pirólise da Biomassa bo Coco: Produção de Bioóleo, Biocarvão e Biogás; Universidade Federal
de Alagoas: Rio Largo, Brazil, 2018.
26. Martins, L.G.D. Análise Da Viabilidade Técnico E Conômic A Para Implantação De Uma Unidade De Processamento De Polímeros,
Provenientes Dos Resíduos S Ólid Os Urbanos, Através Da Pirólise; Universidade Estadual Paulista: São Paualo, Brazil, 2021.
27. Almerindo, G.I.; Rossol, H.V. Analysis of the economic feasibility of industrial production of charcoal from malt bagasse. Eng.
Sanit. Ambient. 2023, 28, e20220183. [CrossRef]
28. Assunção, F.P.D.C.; Pereira, D.O.; Silva, J.C.C.D.; Ferreira, J.F.H.; Bezerra, K.C.A.; Bernar, L.P.; Ferreira, C.C.; Costa, A.F.d.F.;
Pereira, L.M.; Paz, S.P.A.d.; et al. A Systematic Approach to Thermochemical Treatment of Municipal Household Solid Waste into
Valuable Products: Analysis of Routes, Gravimetric Analysis, Pre-Treatment of Solid Mixtures, Thermochemical Processes, and
Characterization of Bio-Oils and Bio-Adsorbents. Energies 2022, 15, 7971. [CrossRef]
29. Project Management Institute, Inc. Available online: https://www.pmi.org (accessed on 5 January 2023).
30. Brigham, E.; Gapenski, L.; Ehrhardt, M.C. Administração Financeira: Teoria e Prática; Atlas: São Paulo, Brazil, 2001.
31. Amaral, A.R.; Bernar, L.P.; Ferreira, C.C.; de Oliveira, R.M.; Pereira, A.M.; Pereira, L.M.; Santos, M.C.; Assunção, F.P.d.C.; Bezerra,
K.C.A.; Almeida, H.d.S.; et al. Economic Feasibility Assessment of the Thermal Catalytic Process of Wastes: Açaí Seeds (Euterpe
oleracea) and Scum from Grease Traps. Energies 2022, 15, 7718. [CrossRef]
32. Colpo, I.; Medeiros, F.S.B.; Weise, A.D. Análise De Retorno Do Investimento: Um Estudo Aplicado Em Uma Microempresa. RACI
Getúlio Vargas 2016, 10, 21.
33. Bruni, A.L.; Famá, R.; de Oliveira Siqueira, J. Análise do riso na avaliação de projetos de investimentos: Uma placa do método de
monte carlo. Cad. De Pesuisas Em. Adm. 1998, 6, 62–74.
34. Goret, P.P.; Spritzer, I.M.A.; Zotes, L.P. Viabilidade Economica-Financeira, 4th ed.; Editora FVG; Available online: https://editora.fgv.
br/produto/viabilidade-economico-financeira-de-projetos-2480 (accessed on 15 June 2023).
35. da Silva, M.C.; Santos, G.O.D. Densidade Aparente De Resíduos Sólidos Recém Coletados; Institutor Federeal de Educação, Ciência e
Tecnologia do Ceará (IFCE): Fotaleza, Brazil, 2010.
36. Copyright Petrobras. 2022. Available online: https://precos.petrobras.com.br/web/precos-dos-combustiveis/w/glp/pa
(accessed on 15 June 2023).
37. Garré, S.O.; Luz, M.L.G.S.; Luz, C.A.S.; Gadotti, I.; Navroski, R. Economic analysis for implantation of a composting plant of
urban organic residue. Rev. ESPACIOS 2017, 38, 17.
38. Nettle—Máquinas Inteligentes. Available online: https://nettle.com.br/produtos/misturador-ribbon-blender-nt5000l-duplicate-
1/ (accessed on 10 June 2023).
39. Equatorial Energia, Belém-Pará-Brasil. Available online: https://pa.equatorialenergia.com.br/informacoes-gerais/valor-de-
tarifas-e-servicos/ (accessed on 15 May 2023).
40. Trapp. Available online: https://www.trapp.com.br/pt/produto/tr-600e/ (accessed on 10 June 2023).
41. 7LAB Equipamentos E Servicos. Available online: https://www.7lab.com.br/equipamentos-para-laboratorio/estufa-de-
secagem-e-esterilizacao/estufa-de-secagem-e-esterilizacao-digital-de-alta-precisao-7lab-480-l-250-c-220v-com-timer (accessed
on 10 June 2023).
42. Santos, M.C. Estudo do Processo de Craqueamento Termocatálico da Borra de Neutralização do Óleo de Palma Para a Produção
de Biocombustível. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém, Brazil, 2015.
43. Oliveira, C.; Tippayawong, N. Análise Técnica e Econômica de uma Planta de Pirólise de Biomassa. Energ. Procedia 2015, 79,
950–955.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.