Multicritery analysis for prioritizing the energy use of urban solid waste as a fuel in Paulista-PE

Guedes, Flávio Leôncio; El-Deir, Soraya Giovanetti; Jucá, José Fernando Thomé; Lima, Iara Lícia Pereira

doi:10.1590/0103-6513.20210071

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Thematic Section - Future of Energy-efficient Operations and Production Systems • Prod. 31 • 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6513.20210071 copy

Multicritery analysis for prioritizing the energy use of urban solid waste as a fuel in Paulista-PE

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Paper aims

To carry out a multi-criteria analysis to assist decision making regarding the indication of the best alternative for converting solid waste energy into fuel.

Originality

The innovative and advantageous approach analyzes the feasibility of deploying the technology, mainly due to new and significant information on waste energy recovery.

Research method

The application of the system based on multi-criteria analysis, through the method of hierarchical analysis, according to previously established criteria, enables decision-making based on multiple criteria.

Main findings

The criteria generated by the mathematical process presented the priorities of heat treatment technologies and energy potential according to the levels of preference and order of importance.

Implications for theory and practice

The production refused derived fuel replaces petroleum-derived fuel sources, and reduces the amount of waste disposed of in landfills.

Keywords
AHP; Multicritery analysis; Waste energy; Energy recycling

INTENSITY OF IMPORTANCE	DEFINITION	EXPLANATION
1	Same importance	Both attributes contribute equally to the objective.
3	Weak importance of one over the other	Experience and judgment strongly favor one attribute over the other.
5	Strong or essential importance	Experience and judgment slightly favor one attribute over the other.
7	Very strong or demonstrated importance	One attribute is strongly favored over the other; its predominance of importance is demonstrated in practice.
9	Absolut importance	The evidence favors one attribute over the other with the highest degree of certainty.
2,4,6,8	Intermediate values between adjacent values	When looking for a favorable condition between two definitions.

Matrix order (n)	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
IR value	0	0.58	0.9	1.12	1.24	1.32	1.41	1.45	1.51

CRITERIA FOR THE OBJECTIVE	ENVIRONMENTAL	ECONOMIC	SOCIAL	TECHNICAL
ENVIRONMENTAL	1.00	0.20	7.00	1.00
ECONOMIC	5.00	1.00	7.00	3.00
SOCIAL	0.14	0.14	1.00	0.20
TECHNICAL	1.00	0.33	5.00	1.00
SUM	7.14	1.68	20.00	5.20

CRITERIA FOR THE OBJECTIVE	ENVIRONMENTAL	ECONOMIC	SOCIAL	TECHNICAL	PRIORITIES VECTOR
ENVIRONMENTAL	0.140	0.119	0.350	0.192	0.200
ECONOMIC	0.700	0.597	0.350	0.577	0.556
SOCIAL	0.020	0.085	0.050	0.038	0.048
TECHNICAL	0.140	0.199	0.250	0.192	0.195

CRITERIA FOR THE OBJECTIVE	ENVIRONMENTAL	ECONOMIC	SOCIAL	TECHNICAL
ENVIRONMENTAL	0.140	0.119	0.350	0.192
ECONOMIC	0.700	0.597	0.350	0.577
SOCIAL	0.020	0.085	0.050	0.038
TECHNICAL	0.140	0.199	0.250	0.192
WEIGHT	0.200	0.556	0.048	0.195

CRITERIA FOR THE OBJECTIVE	ENVIRONMENTAL	ECONOMIC	SOCIAL	TECHNICAL	SUM OF WEIGHTS
ENVIRONMENTAL	0.028	0.066	0.017	0.038	0.149
ECONOMIC	0.140	0.332	0.017	0.113	0.602
SOCIAL	0.004	0.047	0.002	0.008	0.061
TECHNICAL	0.028	0.111	0.012	0.038	0.188

SUM OF WEIGHTS	PRIORITIES	WEIGHT / PRIORITY
0.149	0.200	0.743
0.602	0.556	1.082
0.061	0.048	1.266
0.188	0.195	0.964

Environmental Criteria
C1	RDF coprocessing	Incineration	Gasification	Pyrolysis	Priority
RDF coprocessing	1.000	9.000	7.000	5.000	64%
Incineration	0.111	1.000	0.333	0.200	5%
Gaseification	0.143	3.000	1.000	0.333	10%
Pyrolysis	0.200	5.000	3.000	1.000	21%
Economic Criteria
C2	RDF coprocessing	Incineration	Gasification	Pyrolysis	Priority
RDF coprocessing	1.000	5.000	1.000	0.333	23%
Incineration	0.200	1.000	0.333	0.200	7%
Gaseification	1.000	3.000	1.000	0.333	19%
Pyrolysis	3.000	5.000	3.000	1.000	51%
Social Criteria
C3	RDF coprocessing	Incineration	Gasification	Pyrolysis	Priority
RDF coprocessing	1.000	7.000	5.000	5.000	63%
Incineration	0.143	1.000	0.333	0.333	6%
Gaseification	0.200	3.000	1.000	1.000	15%
Pyrolysis	0.200	3.000	1.000	1.000	15%
Technical Criteria
C4	RDF coprocessing	Incineration	Gasification	Pyrolysis	Priority
RDF coprocessing	1.000	7.000	3.000	5.000	56%
Incineration	0.143	1.000	0.200	0.500	6%
Gaseification	0.333	5.000	1.000	3.000	27%
Pyrolysis	0.200	2.000	0.333	1.000	11%

CONSISTENCY INDEX	IC (λmax-n)/(n-1)	IC	REASON FOR CONSISTENCY (RC=IC/IR)	REFERENCE (IC/IR)	SITUATION
RDF COPROCESSING	0.058	0.9	0.064	<0.9	Consistent
INCINERATION	0.039	0.9	0.043	<0.9	Consistent
GASEIFICATION	0.025	0.9	0.027	<0.9	Consistent
PYROLYSIS	0.023	0.9	0.025	<0.9	Consistent

CRITERION	EXPECTED	REAL
C1 - PCI (kcal.kg^-1)	≥ 2 750	4.666
C2 - HAB (Hab)	300.000	334.376
C3 – ISLU	1	0.622
C4 - DIST (Km)	<150	<100
C5 - USW (Ton.month^-1)	>6.000	8.100
C6 – GRAV	<60% Organic	34.96

Associação Brasileira de Engenharia de Produção Av. Prof. Almeida Prado, Travessa 2, 128 - 2º andar - Room 231, 05508-900 São Paulo - SP - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: production@editoracubo.com.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *f_l_guedes@hotmail.com, guedsflav@gmail.com