Energy Conversion and Management 302 (2024) 118110

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Research Paper

Comparative assessment of pyrolysis and Gasification-Fischer Tropsch for

sustainable aviation fuel production from waste tires
Brooke E. Rogachuk a, Jude A. Okolie b, *
a
School of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, Gallogly College of Engineering, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, United States
b
Engineering Pathways, Gallogly College of Engineering, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The aviation industry is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, making it critical to transition from
Hydrogen traditional fossil jet fuels to eco-friendly sustainable aviation fuels (SAF). This change is essential to achieve the
Sustainable aviation fuel goal of net-zero emissions by 2030. Moreover, Waste tires presents a significant environmental challenge due to
Gasification
their durability and difficulty of disposal. Their toxic and flammable nature complicates storage and processing.
Pyrolysis
To address these challenges, waste tires can be processed to SAF using thermochemical processes such as py­
Hydroprocessing
Fischer-Tropsch rolysis to bio-oil and hydroprocessing, or gasification to syngas and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (GFT). While waste
tires appear to be a viable feedstock,there have not been studies to date that thoroughly compared the most
efficient thermochemical process of converting waste tires to SAF. This study compares the economic and
environmental impacts of two waste tire based SAF production methods (Pyrolysis/hydroprocessing and GFT).
Economically, both methods are more favorable compared to other SAF pathways such as alcohol to jet (ATJ) or
hydroprocessing of esters and fatty acids (HEFA). Pyrolysis SAF costs more (0.78 USD/l) than GFT SAF (0.66
USD/l). Pyrolysis is sensitive to hydrogen costs, with a 30% price fluctuation significantly impacting its minimum
fuel selling price (MFSP). In contrast, the GFT method is more influenced by catalyst costs. Environmentally,
pyrolysis emits less CO2 (34.3 kg CO2 eq/kg SAF) compared to GFT (58.6 kg CO2 eq/kg SAF) but has a higher
potential environmental impact in several categories, except for terrestrial ecotoxicity, where both methods are
similar. Although pyrolysis has a lower global warming potential (GWP), it presents higher risks in toxicity and
photochemical pollution.

1. Introduction living standards, and cheaper airfare in the coming years [1]. It should
be mentioned that the projection didn’t consider the potential long-term
The aviation sector has changed the way we connect globally, effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, whose full impact is still uncertain.
making it easier to move people and goods worldwide. As a key trans­ Regardless, the increasing growth of the aviation industry cannot be
portation medium, air travel provides a fast and easily accessible means neglected. Moreover, the growth in the aviation industry is accompanied
for the movement of products and people, facilitating trade, tourism, by several environmental impacts from the use of fossil derived fuels.
and other socio-economic activities. The international air transport as­ Conventional jet fuels are primarily derived from petroleum sources,
sociation (IATA) predicted that global passenger counts would double in resulting in the emission of significant amounts of greenhouse gases. The
20 years, from 3.8 billion in 2016 to 8.2 billion by 2037 [1]. This 3.5% combustion of these fuels accounts for 2–3% of global carbon dioxide
yearly increase is due to the expected population growth, improved (CO2) emissions [2]. Additionally, they release various other chemical

Abbreviations: ATJ, Alcohol to jet; AEA, Aspen Economic analyzer; CaPEx, Capital Expenditure; CCS, Carbon capture and storage; CEPCI, Chemical Engineering
Plant Cost Index; EC, Energy conversion efficiency; COE, Equipment purchase cost; FP, Fast pyrolysis; FTS, Fischer-Tropsch synthesis; FOC, Fixed Operating Cost;
GFT, Gasification-Fischer-Tropsch; GWP, Global warming potential; HTP, Human toxicity potential; HEFA, Hydroprocessing of esters and fatty acids; IATA, Inter­
national air transport association; ISO, International Organization for Standardization; LCA, Life Cycle Assessment; MUSD, Millions U.S dollars; MFSP, Minimum fuel
selling price; NPV, Net Present Value; NOL, Number of required laborers; OpEx, Operational Expenditure; PSP, Photochemical smog potential; PSA, Pressure swing
adsorption; SAF, Sustainable aviation fuel; TEA, Techno-economic assessments; VOC, Variable Operating Cost; WtT, Well-to-tank.
* Corresponding author at: Engineering Pathways, Gallogly College of Engineering, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, United States.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J.A. Okolie).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2024.118110
Received 13 December 2023; Received in revised form 3 January 2024; Accepted 15 January 2024
Available online 24 January 2024
0196-8904/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B.E. Rogachuk and J.A. Okolie Energy Conversion and Management 302 (2024) 118110

compounds that amplify the greenhouse gas effect [2]. In 2022, CO2 comparative analysis of SAF production from waste tires. It specifically
emissions from the transportation sector saw a significant rise, examines two thermochemical processes: GFT and Fast Pyrolysis (FP)
increasing by 268 metric tons to hit a global total of 11.2 gigatons [3]. coupled with catalytic hydroprocessing.
Furthermore, aviation fuel accounts for approximately 2% of all human-
caused CO2 emissions globally [3]. Beyond CO2 emissions, the aviation 2. Methodology
sector adds to global warming with non-CO2 effects, including emissions
like nitrogen oxides (NOx), water vapor, and soot, which can result in 2.1. General overview
contrails or vapor trails from aircraft [4].
Despite the progress in electric vehicle technologies, the aviation GFT and FP are two main thermochemical processes for producing
industry still faces substantial challenges in adopting electrification. SAF from waste tires. It should be mentioned that FP in this context,
These challenges include the lack of infrastructure for electric aviation refers to a combination of FP and catalytic hydroprocessing. GFT pro­
and the impracticality of using batteries as a direct replacement for cesses follow a sequential gasification of biomass to produce syngas and
airplane fuel. Given these constraints, it becomes increasingly evident subsequent conversion of syngas to SAF through the Fischer- Tropsch
that sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) represents the most viable trajectory synthesis (FTS) process. During gasification, the biomass undergoes high
for achieving a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions within temperature (600–1000 ◦ C) in the presence of a gasifying agent (CO2,
the aviation sector [5]. air, steam and supercritical water) to produce syngas [16]. Impurities
SAF is a clean burning, renewable fuel source that has comparable such as particulates, ash, tar, acid gas and trace metals are removed from
chemical properties to conventional aviation fuel. There are several the syngas prior to FTS process through a series of syngas cleanup
technologies that can be used to create SAF. The advantages and limi­ activities.
tations of each process have been meticulously discussed elsewhere [4]. Syngas from biomass gasification is sent to the FTS reactor where it is
The technologies can be categorized as either biological, thermochem­ converted into liquid SAF via catalytic cracking processes [17]. In the
ical, or integrated processes. Biological processes include alcohol to jet FTS process, a significant challenge is managing the product’s compo­
(ATJ) and fermentation. Thermochemical processes include hydrother­ sition and refining synthetic oil to meet SAF standards. The catalysts
mal liquefaction, pyrolysis, gasification and Fischer-Tropsch (GFT). The used in FTS, such as cobalt (Co), iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), and ruthenium
Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA) method for producing (Ru), play a crucial role in achieving the desired yield, composition, and
SAF converts bio-based materials into cleaner jet fuel, thereby reducing selectivity of the final product [4].
greenhouse gas emissions [6]. However, this method faces challenges Similar to GFT process, FP is another thermochemical process that
like scaling up to meet global aviation fuel needs, high hydrogen usage, transforms biomass into solid, liquid, and gaseous products. This process
and costly feedstocks [4]. Consequently, due to the expense and scal­ occurs at moderate pyrolysis temperatures ranging from 400 ◦ C to
ability issues of feedstocks, research is exploring alternative materials 600 ◦ C, with fast heating rates for the feedstock exceeding 100 ◦ C/min
and methods for SAF production [2,7,8]. and is combined with brief residence times between 0.5 and 2 s [18]. It
SAFs can be produced from a variety of sources, including used should be mentioned that the liquid product from FP, commonly
cooking oils, agricultural leftovers, energy crops, algae, and municipal referred to as bio-oil, can be further refined into drop-in fuel [19].
solid waste. Among these, waste tires are particularly promising due to Directly using bio-oil as a drop-in fuel is not feasible due to the presence
their low cost and distinctive physicochemical characteristics, making of oxygenates and other undesirable properties such as thermal insta­
them suitable for SAF production through thermochemical processes bility, corrosiveness, and low energy density [20]. As a result, bio-oil
[9]. A typical tire has a lifespan of 3 to 6 years [9]. After this period, they requires further refinement to align with current SAF standards and to
are either discarded, recycled, or retreaded. Improper disposal of tires be compatible with existing aircraft systems. Both GFT and FP are
poses significant environmental threats, such as water contamination promising thermochemical conversion technologies for producing SAF.
and and the release of chemicals that affect soil quality and promote Therefore, the present study provides a comparative analysis of the two
mosquito breeding. Their durability and associated health risks under­ processes in terms of economic and environmental impacts.
score the need for effective tire management strategies. Converting The systematic approach employed to assess the economic and
waste tires into energy and materials for energy storage could address environmental impact in this study is elucidated in Fig. 1. The initial
these disposal challenges and mitigate the related environmental phase entails a comprehensive literature review to gather essential
impacts. experimental data, kinetic details, and reaction processes for FTS and FP
Several studies have explored different thermochemical processes for processes. Subsequently, this gathered data is employed to develop
converting waste tires into energy [10]. Rogachuk and Okolie [9] pro­ Aspen Plus models, which are further elaborated in the next section. The
posed a sustainable integrated waste tire biorefinery by considering its Aspen Plus model developed is utilized to calculate the mass and energy
utilization for the production of several products such as bio-oil, acti­ balances of the process, along with guiding the selection and sizing of
vated carbon, propionic acid and alcohols. Karagöz et al. [11] explored equipment. The simulation plays a key role in scaling up the technology
the viability of utilizing waste tire oil as a fuel in compression ignition to align with the economies of scale typical in production processes.
(CI) engines without the need for further upgrading. In another study, Subsequently, economic evaluations and cash flow analyses were con­
pine bark and waste tires were gasified to produce syngas [12]. Some ducted to determine the profitability of both the GFT and FP processes.
researchers have also presented an overview of both current and
emerging technologies for producing SAF from various precursors 2.2. Process design
[13,14]. Recently, Gunerhan et al. [15] reviewed studies where oils
derived from waste tires through pyrolysis were tested as fuels in avia­ The GFT and FP process simulation were both modeled in Aspen Plus
tion gas turbine engines. These oils, either pure or mixed with conven­ Version 11 licensed by the Gallogly College of Engineering, University of
tional fuels, were assessed in gas turbine engines, focusing on Oklahoma. The Aspen Plus simulation was steady state and isothermal.
combustion, emission, and performance metrics. While waste tires Waste tire was defined as non-conventional stream based on the proxi­
appear to be a viable alternative feedstock, there have not been studies mate and ultimate analysis information as shown in Table 1. In order to
to date that thoroughly compared the most efficient thermochemical define a non-conventional stream, RYield reactor block was used to
process for converting waste tires to SAF. More importantly, there are decompose the waste tires into conventional components including C,
limited studies assessing the economic and environmental impacts of H2, O2, N2, Cl2, H2O, ash and S [21]. The composition of waste tires used
producing SAF from waste tires via thermochemical conversion path­ in the study includes C, H, N, S and O contents of 83.34 wt%, 6.82 wt%,
ways. This study aims to bridge a knowledge gap by providing a 0.79 wt%, 1.33 wt% and 2.78 wt% respectively [21,22]. Additionally,

2
B.E. Rogachuk and J.A. Okolie Energy Conversion and Management 302 (2024) 118110

Fig. 1. Overview of the techno-economic and lifecycle assessment methodology.

Table 1
List of assumptions used during process simulation and feedstock properties [21,22].
Feedstock (waste tire) properties Proximate analysis (wt.%) Ultimate analysis (wt.%)

Moisture FC VM ASH C H2 N2 S O
0.76 32 63.04 4.2 83.34 6.82 0.79 1.33 2.78

Enthalpy mode HCOALGEN

Density mode DCOALIGT
Pressure drop in reactor Negligible
Temperature changes in reactor Isothermal

the moisture, FC, Ash and VM contents of the waste tires are 0.76 wt%, less than 3%. After drying, the feedstock is transferred to the gasification
32 wt%, 63.04 wt% and 4.2 wt% respectively [21,22]. Based on the unit.
results of the proximate and analysis, waste tire decomposition is The gasification unit was designed using a combination of RYield and
modelled according to Eq. (S1) in the supplementary materials. A RGibbs reactors. The specifics of this biomass gasification system,
calculator block is incorporated into the RYield block, and its function is including detailed technical and operational aspects, have been thor­
executed using a programmed FORTRAN subroutine statement. Details oughly documented in our previous study [21]. The gasification process
of the non-conventional reactor modelling in Aspen plus can be found in is initiated with the introduction of 25,000 kg/h of waste tire crumbs
our previous study [21]. The assumptions inherent in both GFT and FP and 1000 kg/h of air into a stoichiometric dryer maintained at 702 ◦ C
models are defined in Table 1. and 1 bar. Gasification can be performed using various agents, and the
choice of agent significantly impacts hydrogen yield. In this context,
2.2.1. Gasification Fischer-Tropsch model steam gasification was chosen based on a comparative analysis of
Schematics of the GFT model are presented in Fig. 2. The model is hydrogen yields from different gasification methods. The result of this
divided into three sequential units: gasification, syngas cleaning and FTS analysis, showing the hydrogen yields for each type of gasification is
units. The process starts with drying waste tires to lower moisture presented in Fig. 3. The promising performance of steam gasification
content, using a continuously operating air dryer set at 1 bar pressure compared to other forms of gasification have been reported in previous
and 5 cal/s heat duty. This step reduces the moisture in the feedstock to studies in literature. For instance, Fernandez-Lopez et al. observed that

3
B.E. Rogachuk and J.A. Okolie Energy Conversion and Management 302 (2024) 118110

Fig. 2. Schematics of the Gasification Fischer Tropsch Model.

Fig. 3. Comparative evaluation of hydrogen production from different types of waste tires gasification.

4
B.E. Rogachuk and J.A. Okolie Energy Conversion and Management 302 (2024) 118110

steam gasification produced higher quantities of hydrogen and CO in necessary inert atmosphere for the pyrolysis of the dried tires. The py­
comparison to CO2 gasification of animal waste [23]. Shayan et al. rolysis reactor is modeled using an RYield reactor operating at 450 ◦ C
performed a theoretical study on the impact of different gasifying agents and 1 bar, based on Liu et al.’s study [31]. The bio-oil produced from this
on product yield [24]. Based on their results, steam gasification pro­ process mainly consists of esters, alcohols, acids, furans, phenolics, ar­
duced the optimum hydrogen yield compared to other forms of gasifying omatics, and ketones.
agent. Steam gasification promotes the water–gas shift reaction, thereby Fast pyrolysis produces various gases like CH4, H2, C2H6, CO, and
generating additional hydrogen [25], Furthermore, steam gasification CO2, and a char consisting of solid carbon and ash. The char is separated
can be more flexible in terms of feedstock, including the ability to handle and combusted for heat and energy contribution to the plant. Mean­
feedstocks with moderate moisture content. while, the oil and gas fractions are cooled to 25 ◦ C, separated, and then
The FTS process involves the synthesis of liquid hydrocarbons from sent for hydroprocessing as detailed in Fig. 4.
synthesis gas (mixture of H₂ and CO). The specific operating conditions The bio-oil is pressurized and heated to 62 bar and 350 ◦ C while
can vary based on the desired product distribution, the catalyst used, hydrogen is compressed and sent into the hydroprocessing tank. The
and the specific process variant. The ideal stoichiometric ratio for the products are then cooled and depressurized. The gaseous by-products
Fischer-Tropsch reaction is 2:1 (H₂:CO), therefore the product gas from consist of 96% water vapor and 4% a mix of C3H8, CO, CO2, CH4, and
gasification undergoes series of processes known as syngas cleaning to C2H6. The oil products contain hydrocarbon chains ranging from C7-C18,
ensure that the desired ratio is obtained (Fig. 2). Syngas cleaning, which C9-C16, and C16+ heavy oil. Fig. 5 presents a detailed flow diagram of the
starts with the gas being cooled to 25 ◦ C to facilitate the separation of bio-oils’ hydrocracking/isomerization to produce SAF, while Fig. 6
water vapor. outlines the entire FP-hydroprocessing unit operations.
Following this, the gas undergoes a multistage compression process
aimed at elevating its pressure to 30 bar through a two-stage progres­
2.3. Technoeconomic assessment
sion. The compression is isentropic and raises the gas temperature to
300 ◦ C. The pressurized gas is subsequently directed to a pressure swing
Economic assessments are integral for evaluating the feasibility and
adsorption (PSA) hydrogen separator, where there is no pressure drop
viability of the proposed technology. In this regard, techno-economic
within this unit [26].The hydrogen separation unit undergoes depres­
assessments (TEA) have been conducted on both models to determine
surization for adsorbent regeneration, a phenomenon mirrored in the
the minimum fuel selling price (MFSP) of SAF, factoring in aspects such
off-stream simulation’s depressurization phase. In addition, the
as feedstock cost, utilities, and other key parameters. The Capital
remaining gases are subjected to compression to 30 bar within the sec­
Expenditure (CapEx) calculations are based on segregating the equip­
ond compressor before being routed to a second pressure swing
ment purchase cost (COE) into its direct and indirect components. A
adsorption unit, tasked with eliminating CO. Char produced from waste
thorough overview of the CapEx evaluation can be found in Table S2 of
tire gasification is sent to the char combustion where they are com­
the supplementary materials [32].
busted to provide some of the heat required for the endothermic gasi­
Operational Expenditure (OpEx) was delineated to include both
fication process. The char combustion is modelled in a stoichiometric
Variable Operating Cost (VOC) and Fixed Operating Cost (FOC),
reactor with predefined equations reported in our previous study [21].
considering components of labor costs and COE. The VOC covered ex­
The final phase in the GFT model includes the FTS reactor, along
penses related to raw materials, catalysts, and utilities. In contrast, the
with the product separation and recovery stages. Optimally composed
FOC included aspects such as labor charges, repair works, overheads,
and thoroughly purified syngas is fed into the FTS reactor, modeled as a
and maintenance. Labor costs were quantified by determining the
stoichiometric reactor. This reactor simulates various complex re­
number of required laborers (NOL), as calculated from Eq. (1) [33]:
actions, detailed in Table S1 of the supplementary material, reflecting
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
the intricate dynamics of the FTS process. These reaction mechanisms NOL = (31.7P2 + 0.23N + 6.29) (1)
have been thoughtfully sourced from the scholarly works of Selvatico
et al. [27] and Leibbrandt et al.[28]. These reactions detail the con­ In Eq. (1), ’N’ represents the number of non-particulate processing steps,
version of syngas into hydrocarbons ranging from C1 to C16, along with which include compression, heat exchangers, and mixing. ’P’ stands for
water production. Post-catalytic conversion, the product undergoes steps that involve solids. According to the scenarios described, the
cooling and depressurization to reach standard conditions. It is then estimated NOL required for operating the GFT process plants is about 28,
distilled to separate and purify components, ensuring optimal quality of and for FP-hydroprocessing, it is approximately 45. The detailed
the final product. breakdown of the OpEx appraisal is in Table S3 of the supplementary
materials. It assumes an annual operation time of 8000 h and considers
2.2.2. Fast pyrolysis model Oklahoma’s minimum wage of $7.25 [34]. Based on these parameters,
FP is a thermochemical process that rapidly heats biomass in the the average salary is calculated to be USD $21,170. A detailed break­
absence of oxygen, leading to the swift breakdown of complex organic down of the assumptions critical to the economic model assessment can
materials into bio-oil, char, and gas [29]. With the process operating at be found in Table 2.
high temperatures of around 400–600 ◦ C and short residence times, FP Oklahoma was chosen as the proposed site for the plant due to its
maximizes the production of liquid bio-oil. This bio-oil can be further strategic advantages. The state offers key transport routes like Interstate
refined into biofuels. Using bio-oil as a ready-to-use fuel is impractical 35, which connects Canada to Mexico, and Route 40, covering 14 states
due to its high oxygen content and properties like thermal instability, and 7 major cities. The accessibility is further boosted by US Route 44.
corrosiveness, and low energy density [30]. For it to meet SAF standards Additionally, Oklahoma’s attractiveness is enhanced by the presence of
and be compatible with current aircraft systems, bio-oil requires further Foreign Trade Zone 106 and a favorable labor market, which boasts
refining. competitive costs and a low unemployment rate, as shown by Oklaho­
The utilization of the FP process to create SAF was divided into two ma’s Labor Market data [35].
steps: pyrolysis and hydro-cracking/isomerization. The process was For the construction of the economic model, all costs were appraised
simulated with the introduction of 25,000 kg/h of waste tires alongside in USD while year 2022 was selected as the base year. The envisaged
1000 kg/h of air into the dryer. The dryer reduces the moisture content lifespan of both plants was set at 20 years, with a 2-year construction
of waste tires to less than 3% by weight. After drying, these tires are then period factored in. In the initial years, 20% of the total capital invest­
fed into a fluidized bed reactor where fast pyrolysis takes place. To ment was designated for plant construction. The plant’s operations are
enhance the pyrolysis process, the reactor is infused with a nitrogen flow based on a yearly schedule of 8000 h, with the financial approach being
at a rate of 49,100 kg/h, compressed to 20 bars. This creates the guided by the straight-line depreciation method. The estimation of COE

5
B.E. Rogachuk and J.A. Okolie Energy Conversion and Management 302 (2024) 118110

Fig. 4. Schematics of fast pyrolysis of waste tires for bio-oil production.

was meticulously derived through a combination of Aspen Economic and BioEnergieDat. The LCA’s impact assessment covered various crit­
analyzer (AEA) and literature. The scaling exponent method presented ical aspects, including human toxicity potential, freshwater ecotoxicity,
in Eq. (2) was used to appraise the COE based on literature values. marine aquatic ecotoxicity, photochemical oxidation potential, terres­
( )f trial ecotoxicity potential, and global warming potential (GWP).
C = Co
S
(2) It is pertinent to note the underlying assumptions that guided the
So LCA methodology. The biomass composition primarily revolved around
Here, C symbolizes the computed cost, while Co signifies the base synthetic rubber, sourced from a dedicated plant, while nitrogen was
equipment cost. AEA provides the equipment capacity as denoted by S, procured from atmospheric sources. Hydrogen, a pivotal element in the
while So and f respectively denote the base capacity and an empirically process, was derived from natural gas. To accommodate the complexity
derived scaling exponent. To align the equipment cost with the base of emissions dispersion, all emissions introduced into the air and soil
year, the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI) was used to were treated as unspecified in terms of geographical location.
obtain the necessary adjustments to the base year. Table 2 summarizes
the assumptions in the economic model. 2.5. Energy analysis

The energy analysis is performed to determine whether the ther­

2.4. Life cycle assessment mochemical conversion processes (gasification and pyrolysis) can effi­
ciently convert the waste tires into the desired product [37]. The energy
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a method used to evaluate the total conversion efficiency (EC) was used to evaluate and compare the ener­
environmental impact of a product throughout its life cycle, starting getic performance of the two processes. EC is expressed as the ratio of
from the initial production. It is an essential tool for making informed the energy output and the energy input of the system [37]. Details of the
decisions, as it provides a thorough understanding of a product’s envi­ calculations used to estimate EC are presented in Eqs. (3)–(8).
ronmental effects. A well-to-tank (WtT) LCA was conducted to compare
Ėout
two different SAF production methods and assess their environmental EC = × 100% (3)
impacts. The LCA in this study followed the International Organization Ėin
for Standardization (ISO) guidelines. It encompassed four key stages:
Ėout = Ṁ gases LHV gases + Ṁ char LHV char + Ṁ liquids LHV liquids + Q̇out (4)
defining the goals and scope, conducting an inventory analysis, assess­
ing environmental impacts, and interpreting the results [6].
Ėin = Ṁ wastetires LHV wastetires + Ṁ steam LHV steam + Q̇in (5)
The goal and scope phase involves the definition of the overall goal
of the LCA study as well as identifying the system boundaries. In this
Q̇in = Q̇gasification + Q̇charcombustionunit (6)
context, it involves an in-depth appraisal of the environmental footprints
of two different SAF production pathways from waste tires considering
only their production processes (WtT) [36]. To execute this, all inputs Q̇out = Q̇sep + Q̇comp (7)
and outputs originating from both processes were meticulously identi­ ∑
fied within Aspen Plus, and subsequently transposed into the Open LCA LHV i = Xi LHV i (8)
software version 2.0—a well-regarded platform for holistic LCA.
In the inventory analysis phase of the LCA, essential background data where Ėout and Ėin represents the energy output and input respectively in
were carefully obtained from renowned sources, primarily Ecoinvent MW. Q̇in and Q̇out are the heat input and output into the thermochemical

6
B.E. Rogachuk and J.A. Okolie Energy Conversion and Management 302 (2024) 118110

Fig. 5. Schematics of the catalytic hydrocracking/isomerization of bio-oil and product separation to produce sustainable aviation fuels.

conversion processes. Xi and LHVi are the mass fraction and lower solid, 5–25 wt% liquid and 10–30 wt% gaseous products [40]. On the
heating values of individual product ‘i’. It should be mentioned that the contrary, fast pyrolysis of waste tires produces 26.8–40.26 wt% liquid
LHV values are measured at 1 atm and 25 ◦ C. The values are LHV derived yield, 35.8–47.9wt% char yield and 11.9–19 wt% gas yield [41].
from the chemical engineering handbook [38]. Q̇gasification , The EC of the gasification and fast pyrolysis of waste tires are pre­
Q̇charcombustionunit and Q̇sep are the heat required from the biomass gasifi­ sented in Fig. 9. Pyrolysis had a superior energy conversion efficiency
(88.7%) compared to gasification (87%). The superior energy efficiency
cation unit, char combustion unit and heat from gas separation unit
of pyrolysis could be attributed to several reasons. The lower tempera­
respectively. Q̇comp is the heat generated from the gas compression
ture range in pyrolysis reduces the energy input required, contributing
system.
to higher energy efficiency. Moreover, pyrolysis is typically less complex
than gasification.
3. Results and discussion
Gasification requires a controlled amount of oxygen or air, and the
management of this can make the process more complex and potentially
3.1. Mass flow and energy conversion efficiency
less efficient in terms of energy conversion. The energy required to
maintain the high temperatures and pressure conditions in gasification
The mass flow results for the two waste tires thermochemical con­
is typically higher than that for pyrolysis. This higher energy con­
version processes are presented by the Sankey diagrams in Figs. 7 and 8. sumption can reduce the net energy efficiency of the gasification
The quantification of mass inputs is represented in kg/h (kilograms per
process.
hour). Specifically, within the context of waste tire utilization, a feed­
stock of 25,000 kg/h of waste tires yields an output of 1122 kg/h of SAF
and 1537 kg/h of light distillates. Simultaneously, an input of 8000 kg/h 3.2. Economic evaluation
of steam is introduced to serve as the gasification agent. The product
yields during biomass gasification include 84.8 wt% gases, 10.9 wt% 3.2.1. Capital investment and product cost
aqueous liquids and 4.3 wt% gases. The FP mass flow diagram also uses The COE for both scenarios is presented in Tables S4 and S5 of
25,000 kg/h of waste tires as feedstock with 40,000 kg of nitrogen as supplementary materials. The total COE is 16.15 million USD (MUSD)
inert gas. FP product yield includes 42.4 wt% of char, 29.8 wt% liquid for GFT and 24 MUSD for pyrolysis. The higher COE observed in the
products and 27.8 wt% gases. Similar findings have been reported in pyrolysis process for SAF production can be linked to several factors.
literature during the pyrolysis and gasification of waste biomass Pyrolysis involves the thermal decomposition of materials at elevated
including waste tires [39]. Typically, gasification yields 65–85 wt% temperatures in an inert atmosphere. The process can be complex,

7
B.E. Rogachuk and J.A. Okolie Energy Conversion and Management 302 (2024) 118110

Fig. 6. Schematics of the fast pyrolysis and hydroprocessing unit for the production of sustainable aviation fuel from waste tires.

appraisal is documented in Tables S6–S9 of the supplementary mate­

Table 2
rials. In a comparative analysis of pyrolysis and GFT processes for SAF
Assumptions used in the economic model.
production, several key financial parameters stand out. The pyrolysis
Parameters Assumption process incurs a significantly higher VOC at 32.15 MUSD, compared to
Plant location Oklahoma, United States 12.6 MUSD for GFT, suggesting a higher variable expense related to
Currency USD $ production output. This is complemented by the FOC, which is
Plant lifetime 20 years marginally higher for pyrolysis (7.54 MUSD) than for GFT (6.06 MUSD),
Construction duration 2 years
Plant yearly operation 8000 h/year
indicating a slight difference in costs that do not change with the level of
Tax rate 25 % production.
Depreciation method Straight line The CapEx representing the initial investment costs is also appraised
Depreciation time 15 years for the two processes. GFT requires a lower investment of 66.7 MUSD,
Salvage value 0 (required to offset decommissioning cost)
compared to the 99.58 MUSD needed for the pyrolysis process. This
Base year 2022
Land cost 2 % FCI could be indicative of more complex or larger-scale equipment and
infrastructure needs in the pyrolysis process as detailed in the COE.
Similarly, the OpEx, which sums up both FOC and VOC, is substantially
requiring precise control of temperature, pressure, and heating rate. The higher for pyrolysis at 35.36 MUSD, compared to just 10.54 MUSD for
equipment needed for such precise control, including reactors, con­ GFT, reflecting the overall higher operational cost structure of the py­
densers, and temperature control systems, can be expensive. Addition­ rolysis process.
ally, compared to GFT, pyrolysis might require more extensive pre- For the MFSP, which is the price required to break even, GFT
processing of waste tires, such as shredding, cleaning, and drying, to emerges as more economically viable. It requires a lower selling price of
ensure consistent feedstock quality. Equipment for these processes can 0.66 USD/l, compared to pyrolysis, which needs 0.78 USD/l. This factor
add significant costs. Pyrolysis of waste tires to bio-oils required further is crucial as it directly influences market competitiveness and the prof­
hydroprocessing such as catalytic hydrocracking/isomerization of bio- itability of the fuel.
oil and product separation to produce SAF. The processing equipment Interestingly, despite the higher operating costs, the Net Present
required to achieve and maintain the required SAF specifications is often Value (NPV) for pyrolysis is higher (10.83 MUSD) compared to GFT
costly. (5.10 MUSD), suggesting that the pyrolysis process, under the parame­
A summary of the CapEx, OpEx and different profitability indices ters of this analysis, may offer better long-term profitability. This could
used to assess both scenarios is presented in Table 3. It should be be attributed to factors like higher yield or better product quality.
mentioned that detailed information about the CapEx and OpEx It is important to note that these values can vary widely depending

8
B.E. Rogachuk and J.A. Okolie Energy Conversion and Management 302 (2024) 118110

Fig 7. Sankey diagram showing the mass flow during the gasification – Fischer Tropsch process. Note all values are reported in kg/hr unit.

Fig. 8. Sankey diagram showing the mass flow during the mass flows during fast pyrolysis-hydrocracking processes. Note all values are reported in kg/hr unit.

on factors such as the technology used, the scale of operation, and the expensive technology [42]. Overall, this analysis indicates that while
specific feedstock. The higher VOC and OpEx for pyrolysis might reflect GFT is more cost-effective in terms of initial investment and operating
a less efficient or more resource-intensive process compared to GFT, as costs, pyrolysis might offer better long-term returns under certain
seen in some studies [42–44]. However, the higher NPV suggests a conditions.
potentially more profitable venture in the long term, possibly due to
higher yields or better-quality outputs, aligning with some industry 3.2.2. Sensitivity analysis
trends where pyrolysis is seen as a promising but currently more The impacts of multiple variables on the MFSP of SAF were examined

9
B.E. Rogachuk and J.A. Okolie Energy Conversion and Management 302 (2024) 118110

Hydrogen and catalysts are used during hydroprocessing of pyrolysis

derived bio-oil to SAF. Pyrolysis bio-oil can be highly oxygenated and
acidic, making it unsuitable for use as a fuel without further treatment
[45]. Furthermore, pyrolysis derived bio-oil is highly viscous and
denser. Hydrogen reacts with the oxygenated compounds in the bio-oil
to remove oxygen as water. It should be mentioned that hydroprocessing
of bio-oils involves is conversion into liquid hydrocarbons at high tem­
peratures and pressures using catalysts in an environment rich in gases
such as hydrogen or nitrogen [46]. Hydroprocessing of pyrolysis derived
bio-oil to SAF requires several intermediate stages represented in
Fig. 11. Detailed description of each intermediate stages has been
meticulously described elsewhere [46].
The isomerization reaction aims to enhance the cold flow properties
and lower the freezing point of bio-jet fuel. On the other hand, the
cracking reaction further breaks down molecules into the desired carbon
Fig. 9. Comparison between the energy conversion efficiency of pyrolysis and chain length (C8–C16), fitting the boiling point range of conventional jet
gasification at optimum operating conditions. fuels [47].
In contrast, the GFT process shows the highest sensitivity to catalyst
cost. Changes in the cost of catalysts significantly influence the MFSP,
Table 3 more than any other parameter. This suggests that for GFT, the catalyst
Summary of CAPEX, OPEX, VOC, FOC and different profitability index for both cost is a critical factor in determining the economic viability. The
scenarios. sensitivity of the GFT process to catalyst cost primarily arises from the
Parameters Pyrolysis GFT FTS step, which requires catalysts to facilitate the chemical reactions
VOC (MUSD) 32.15 12.6 that convert syngas into longer-chain hydrocarbons [48]. Catalysts used
FOC (MUSD) 7.54 6.06 for the FTS includes the cobalt-based, ruthenium and nickel-based cat­
CAPEX (MUSD) 99.58 66.7 alysts [17]. The catalyst plays a crucial role in controlling product
OPEX (MUSD) 35.36 10.54
selectivity. The type and nature of catalyst determines whether the re­
MFSP (USD/l) 0.78 0.66
NPV (undiscounted) (MUSD) 10.83 5.10
action will favor the production of waxes, diesel, or other types of hy­
drocarbons, thereby influencing the output of the process [49].
The tax rate and feedstock costs show moderate sensitivity, which
through a comprehensive sensitivity analysis presented in Fig. 10. The x- means they are also important to the MFSP but less so than the catalyst
axis represents the MFSP of SAF, with a range from 0.65 to 0.9 USD/l for cost. Labor cost and steam price are the least sensitive parameters for
pyrolysis and 0.3 to 0.9 USD/l for GFT. The y-axis lists different cost GFT, indicating that these factors are less influential on the final selling
parameters including the hydrogen cost, catalyst cost, tax rate, feed­ price of the fuel. Comparatively, it is evident that both processes have
stock, and labor cost for the pyrolysis process. The bars show how sen­ their unique cost sensitivities that need to be managed to ensure eco­
sitive the MFSP is to a +/− 30% change in each cost parameter. It should nomic sustainability. Pyrolysis is most heavily influenced by hydrogen
be mentioned that the length of the bar corresponds to the impact on the cost, which means that any strategy to improve the economic outlook of
MFSP: a longer bar indicates higher sensitivity to that cost parameter. pyrolysis must prioritize hydrogen sourcing and pricing. On the other
For the pyrolysis process, the hydrogen cost is the most sensitive hand, GFT’s MFSP is most responsive to catalyst cost, suggesting that
parameter affecting the MFSP. An increase or decrease in hydrogen cost research into more cost-effective catalysts or catalyst usage optimization
by 30% causes the most considerable change in the MFSP, indicating could be key to reducing the MFSP for this process. Furthermore, the
that controlling hydrogen cost is critical for maintaining the economic range of MFSP variation in response to the cost parameters is broader for
viability of the pyrolysis method. The catalyst and feedstock costs also GFT than for pyrolysis, indicating a potentially greater variability in the
show notable sensitivity, but to a lesser extent than hydrogen, suggest­ GFT process’s economic outcomes. This could suggest that GFT might
ing that while important, variations in these costs have a less pro­ have a higher financial risk but also the possibility of greater cost
nounced effect on the MFSP. The tax rate and labor costs, however, optimization compared to pyrolysis.
demonstrate the least sensitivity, implying that fluctuations in these
areas are less likely to impact the price at which the fuel must be sold to
break even.

Fig. 10. Sensitivity analysis results illustrating how various independent factors affect theMinimum Fuel Selling Price (MFSP) of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) for
(a) pyrolysis (b) GFT process.

10
B.E. Rogachuk and J.A. Okolie Energy Conversion and Management 302 (2024) 118110

Fig. 11. Schematics of bio-oil hydroprocessing steps.

3.3. Environmental assessment Conversely, the higher GWP for the GFT process suggests that this
method, while potentially offering benefits such as higher fuel yield or
The environmental assessment of the two processes was carried out better fuel properties, might have a larger environmental footprint. This
by comparing various criteria such as Global Warming Potential (GWP), could be due to higher energy inputs, the need for more intensive pro­
Human Toxicity Potential (HTP), Photochemical Smog Potential (PSP), cessing, or the types of catalysts used, which could affect overall emis­
Terrestrial Ecotoxicity, and Freshwater Ecotoxicity. Fig. 12 shows the sions. Since the efficiency of the conversion process also plays a crucial
GWP for both processes in comparison to conventional petroleum-based role, coupling GFT with carbon capture and storage (CCS), could be
jet fuels. GWP is significantly important for understanding climate significantly reduce its GWP, potentially making it comparable or even
change dynamics. It aids in informed decision-making, helping policy­ better than FP in terms of GWP. This would be the focus of future studies.
makers, researchers, and industries prioritize global warming mitigation Several LCA studies of SAF production methods have shown varied
strategies. GWP’s value lies in providing a unified framework for results based on multiple factors such as feedstock type, technology
assessing greenhouse gas emissions’ impact and fostering collective ef­ maturity, and system boundaries of the assessment. For instance, some
forts towards a sustainable, climate-resilient future [50]. It should be researchers noted that that the energy required for gasification and the
mentioned that the GWP was expressed in kg of CO2 per kg of SAF. The subsequent FT synthesis is higher compared to pyrolysis, which often
FP process has almost half the amount of CO2 emissions at only 34.3 kg translates into higher GWP values [51]. GFT processes typically require
of CO2 eq when compared to the GFT. Most of these emissions happen a syngas cleaning step to remove contaminants before the FT synthesis,
during the pyrolysis section and the remaining during hydroprocessing. which adds to the energy burden and associated emissions [52]. It
GFT process emits about 58.6 kg of CO2 eq per 1 kg of SAF. The lower should be mentioned that pyrolysis tends to have a lower GWP in some
GWP for pyrolysis indicates that it may be a more environmentally studies due to the potential for biochar co-production, which can
friendly option for SAF production in terms of greenhouse gas emissions sequester carbon and offset some emissions [53].
over the life cycle of the fuel. This could be due to various factors, such Fig. 13 compares the results of environmental indicators for the two
as lower energy requirements, more efficient use of feedstock, or less processes across various ecological and human categories. HTP refers to
intensive downstream processing needs. the potential adverse health effects of a product considering factors such

11
B.E. Rogachuk and J.A. Okolie Energy Conversion and Management 302 (2024) 118110

Fig. 12. Comparative analysis of the global warming potential for the two scenarios with those from petroleum-based fuel [30].

Fig. 13. Comparison of the environmental impacts of the two processes based on the ecological and human categories.

as toxicity, exposer pathways and the potential for exposer to humans. toxicity impact on freshwater ecosystems. Pyrolysis SAF again shows a
This category measures the potential harmful effects on human health, higher impact compared to GFT derived SAF. Similar to freshwater
expressed in kilograms of 1,4-Dichlorobenzene equivalents. Pyrolysis toxicity but for marine environments. Pyrolysis SAF is represented with
SAF has a significantly higher potential for human toxicity than GFT a much higher impact than GFT derived SAF. It should be noted that
derived SAF. On the contrary, PSP is a measurement that considers the pyrolysis contributes more harmful organic compounds that when
potential to create ground level oxygen. It represents the potential for exposed to water cause issues with direct toxicity whereas the main
creating smog, with impacts measured in kilograms of ethylene equiv­ products of gasification fisher Tropsch are gases.
alents. Pyrolysis SAF also has a higher potential for contributing to Terrestrial ecotoxicity refers to land-based ecosystems and how
photochemical oxidant formation than GFT derived SAF. This can be chemicals can affect their various components. Plant toxicity which af­
attributed to the bio-oil produced. Organic compounds when released fects plant growth and overall health, soil organisms that play vital riles
can cause adverse health effects. Additionally, the Volatile organic un soil cycling and ecosystem health, bioaccumulation, and impacts on
compounds and nitrogen oxides contribute to PSP. wildlife such as birds, insects, and mammals. It measures the potential
Marine and freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity focuses on how various for toxicity to land-based ecosystems. Here, the impact of pyrolysis SAF
pollutants can negatively impact organisms, water quality and biodi­ is almost negligible compared to GFT deroved SAF, which is also quite
versity. Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity (kg 1,4- DB eq) measures the low but visibly higher.

12
B.E. Rogachuk and J.A. Okolie Energy Conversion and Management 302 (2024) 118110

Overall, the figure indicates that pyrolysis SAF has a higher potential Acknowledgement
environmental impact in most categories compared to GFT derived SAF,
with the exception of terrestrial ecotoxicity, where both methods appear This project was supported by the Provost’s Summer Undergraduate
to have minimal impact. This could suggest that while pyrolysis may be Research and Creative Activities (UReCA) Fellowship at the University
more favorable in terms of GWP, as discussed earlier, it poses greater of Oklahoma for Brooke E. Rogachuk (Summer 2023). Its contents,
risks in terms of toxicity and photochemical pollution. These results including findings, conclusions, opinions, and recommendations, are
highlight the complexity of evaluating the sustainability of fuel pro­ solely attributed to the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the
duction methods, where a method may perform better in one aspect of views of the Provost’s Office at the University of Oklahoma. The authors
environmental impact but worse in another. Such analyses are crucial wish to acknowledge Sarah M. Barakat for her invaluable assistance in
for informing policy and investment decisions in the development of conceptualizing the initial ideas for several of the images presented in
SAFs. this study.

4. Conclusions Appendix A. Supplementary data

The comparative study analyses the economic and environmental Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
impact of two different approaches for SAF production from waste tires. org/10.1016/j.enconman.2024.118110.
These tires pose a substantial ecological problem owing to their
considerable toxicity and combustibility, along with their durability and References
the complexities associated with their storage and disposal. The first of
the two processes compared are pyrolysis of waste tires to produce bio- [1] Predicts: 8.2 billion Air Travelers in 2037 - Google Scholar n.d. https://scholar.
google.com/scholar_lookup?title=IATA%20forecast%20predicts%208.2%
oil and subsequent hydroprocessing to SAF. The other process is gasifi­ 20billion%20air%20travelers%20in%202037&publication_year=2018&auth
cation of waste tires to produce syngas and subsequent upgrading to SAF or=International%20Air%20Transport%20Association%20(IATA) (accessed
via Fischer–Tropsch process (GFT). September 17, 2023).
[2] Hileman JI, Stratton RW. Alternative jet fuel feasibility. Transp Policy (Oxf) 2014;
Both processes are economically benign when compared to other 34:52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRANPOL.2014.02.018.
SAF production pathways including alcohol-to-jet fuels or Hydro­ [3] IEA. International Energy Agency: Key World Energy Statistics. Statistics (Ber)
processing of esters and fatty acids (HEFA). The MFSP of SAF produced 2016:78. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/energy/key-world-energy-statistics-2010
_9789264095243-en (accessed June 2, 2022).
from pyrolysis (0.78 USD/l) is higher than that of GFT (0.66 USD/l). For [4] Okolie JA, Awotoye D, Tabat ME, Okoye PU, Epelle EI, Ogbaga CC, et al. Multi
the pyrolysis process, the hydrogen cost is the most sensitive parameter criteria decision analysis for the evaluation and screening of sustainable aviation
affecting the MFSP. An increase or decrease in hydrogen cost by 30% fuel production pathways. Cell Com 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.
[5] Kokkinos NC, Emmanouilidou E. Waste-to-energy: applications and perspectives on
causes the most considerable change in the MFSP, indicating that con­
sustainable aviation fuel production. Energy, Environ, Sustain 2023;2023:265–86.
trolling hydrogen cost is critical for maintaining the economic viability https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1392-3_10/COVER.
of the pyrolysis method. On the contrary, GFT process exhibits the [6] Umenweke GC, Pace RB, Santillan-Jimenez E, Okolie JA. Techno-economic and
greatest sensitivity to catalyst cost. Here, changes in the cost of catalysts life-cycle analyses of sustainable aviation fuel production via integrated catalytic
deoxygenation and hydrothermal gasification. Chem Eng J 2023;452:139215.
significantly influence the MFSP, more so than any other parameter. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEJ.2022.139215.
Environmental impact assessment of both processes indicates that [7] Pipitone G, Zoppi G, Pirone R, Production SB-J of C, 2023 undefined. Sustainable
the pyrolysis process has almost half the amount of CO2 emissions at aviation fuel production using in-situ hydrogen supply via aqueous phase
reforming: A techno-economic and life-cycle greenhouse gas. Elsevier; n.d.
only 34.3 kg of CO2 eq when compared to the GFT. Most of these [8] Techno-economic and life-cycle analyses of sustainable aviation fuel production via
emissions happen during the pyrolysis section and the remaining during integrated catalytic deoxygenation and hydrothermal gasification. Elsevier; n.d.
hydroprocessing. GFT process emits about 58.6 kg of CO2 eq per 1 kg of [9] Rogachuk BE, Okolie JA. Waste tires based biorefinery for biofuels and value-
added materials production. Chem Eng J Adv 2023;14:100476. https://doi.org/
SAF. 10.1016/J.CEJA.2023.100476.
Furthermore, pyrolysis SAF has a higher potential environmental [10] Czajczyńska D, Krzyżyńska R, Jouhara H, Spencer N. Use of pyrolytic gas from
impact in most categories compared to GFT SAF, with the exception of waste tire as a fuel: a review. Energy 2017;134:1121–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.ENERGY.2017.05.042.
terrestrial ecotoxicity, where both methods appear to have minimal [11] Karagöz M, Ağbulut Ü, Sarıdemir S. Waste to energy: production of waste tire
impact. While pyrolysis may be more favorable in terms of GWP, as it pyrolysis oil and comprehensive analysis of its usability in diesel engines. Fuel
poses greater risks in terms of toxicity and photochemical pollution. 2020;275:117844. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUEL.2020.117844.
[12] Wang Z, Burra KG, Lei T, Gupta AK. Co-gasification characteristics of waste tire and
pine bark mixtures in CO2 atmosphere. Fuel 2019;257:116025. https://doi.org/
CRediT authorship contribution statement 10.1016/J.FUEL.2019.116025.
[13] Burov NO, Savelenko VD, Ershov MA, Vikhritskaya AO, Tikhomirova EO,
Brooke E. Rogachuk: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original Klimov NA, et al. Knowledge contribution from science to technology in the
conceptualization model to produce sustainable aviation fuels from lignocellulosic
draft, Validation, Software, Methodology, Investigation, Formal anal­ biomass. Renew Energy 2023;215:118898. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ysis, Data curation. Jude A. Okolie: Writing – review & editing, Writing RENENE.2023.06.019.
– original draft, Validation, Supervision, Resources, Project adminis­ [14] Ershov MA, Savelenko VD, Burov NO, Makhova UA, Mukhina DY, Aleksanyan DR,
et al. An incorporating innovation and new interactive technology into obtaining
tration, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. sustainable aviation fuels. Energy 2023;280:128156. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENERGY.2023.128156.
Declaration of Competing Interest [15] Gunerhan A, Altuntas O, Caliskan H. Utilization of renewable and sustainable
aviation biofuels from waste tyres for sustainable aviation transport sector. Energy
2023;276:127566. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2023.127566.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial [16] Wan W. An innovative system by integrating the gasification unit with the
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence supercritical water unit to produce clean syngas: effects of operating parameters.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41:14573–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
the work reported in this paper. ijhydene.2016.04.237.
[17] Yang J, Ma W, Chen D, Holmen A, Davis BH. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis: a review of
Data availability the effect of CO conversion on methane selectivity. Appl Catal A Gen 2014;470:
250–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcata.2013.10.061.
[18] Dickerson T, Soria J. Catalytic fast pyrolysis: a review. Energies (Basel) 2013;6:
Data will be made available on request. 514–38. https://doi.org/10.3390/en6010514.
[19] Okolie JA, Epelle EI, Tabat ME, Orivri U, Amenaghawon AN, Okoye PU, et al.
Waste biomass valorization for the production of biofuels and value-added
products: a comprehensive review of thermochemical, biological and integrated

13
B.E. Rogachuk and J.A. Okolie Energy Conversion and Management 302 (2024) 118110

processes. Process Saf Environ Prot 2022;159:323–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. [37] Detchusananard T, Im-orb K, Ponpesh P, Arpornwichanop A. Biomass gasification
PSEP.2021.12.049. integrated with CO2 capture processes for high-purity hydrogen production:
[20] Elliott DC. Transportation fuels from biomass via fast pyrolysis and Process performance and energy analysis. Energy Convers Manag 2018;171:
hydroprocessing. Wiley Interdisc Rev Energy Environ 2013;2:525–33. https://doi. 1560–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2018.06.072.
org/10.1002/WENE.74. [38] Basu P. Biomass gasification and pyrolysis: practical design and theory. Biomass
[21] Okolie JA, Nanda S, Dalai AK, Kozinski JA. Hydrothermal gasification of soybean Gasif Pyrol: Pract Des Theory 2010:1–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-
straw and flax straw for hydrogen-rich syngas production: experimental and 20099-7.
thermodynamic modeling. Energy Convers Manag 2020;208:112545. https://doi. [39] Olazar M, Lopez G, Arabiourrutia M, Elordi G, Aguado R, Bilbao J. Kinetic
org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2020.112545. modelling of tyre pyrolysis in a conical spouted bed reactor. J Anal Appl Pyrol
[22] Bi R, Zhang Y, Jiang X, Yang H, Yan K, Han M, et al. Simulation and techno- 2008;81:127–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAAP.2007.09.011.
economical analysis on the pyrolysis process of waste tire. Energy 2022;260: [40] Güleç F, Parthiban A, Umenweke GC, Musa U, Williams O, Mortezaei Y, et al.
125039. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2022.125039. Progress in lignocellulosic biomass valorization for biofuels and value-added
[23] Fernandez-Lopez M, Pedroche J, Valverde JL, Sanchez-Silva L. Simulation of the chemical production in the EU: a focus on thermochemical conversion processes.
gasification of animal wastes in a dual gasifier using Aspen Plus®. Energy Convers Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/BBB.2544.
Manag 2017;140:211–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2017.03.008. [41] Williams PT. Pyrolysis of waste tyres: a review. Waste Manag 2013;33:1714–28.
[24] Shayan E, Zare V, Mirzaee I. Hydrogen production from biomass gasification; a https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WASMAN.2013.05.003.
theoretical comparison of using different gasification agents. Energy Convers [42] Kung CC, McCarl BA, Cao X. Economics of pyrolysis-based energy production and
Manag 2018;159:30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2017.12.096. biochar utilization: a case study in Taiwan. Energy Policy 2013;60:317–23.
[25] Okolie JA, Rana R, Nanda S, Dalai AK, Kozinski JA. Supercritical water gasification https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.029.
of biomass: a state-of-the-art review of process parameters, reaction mechanisms [43] Alvarez J, Kumagai S, Wu C, Yoshioka T, Bilbao J, Olazar M, et al. Hydrogen
and catalysis. Sustain Energy Fuels 2019;3. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8se00565f. production from biomass and plastic mixtures by pyrolysis-gasification. Int J
[26] Puig-Gamero M, Argudo-Santamaria J, Valverde JL, Sánchez P, Sanchez-Silva L. Hydrogen Energy 2014;39:10883–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Three integrated process simulation using aspen plus®: pine gasification, syngas ijhydene.2014.04.189.
cleaning and methanol synthesis. Energy Convers Manag 2018;177:416–27. [44] Akubo K, Nahil MA, Williams PT. Pyrolysis-catalytic steam reforming of
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2018.09.088. agricultural biomass wastes and biomass components for production of hydrogen/
[27] Selvatico D, Lanzini A, Santarelli M. Low temperature Fischer-Tropsch fuels from syngas. J Energy Inst 2019;92:1987–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
syngas: kinetic modeling and process simulation of different plant configurations. joei.2018.10.013.
Fuel 2016;186:544–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUEL.2016.08.093. [45] Zacher AH, Elliott DC, Olarte MV, Wang H, Jones SB, Meyer PA. Technology
[28] Leibbrandt NH, Aboyade AO, Knoetze JH, Görgens JF. Process efficiency of biofuel advancements in hydroprocessing of bio-oils. Biomass Bioenergy 2019;125:
production via gasification and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. Fuel 2013;109:484–92. 151–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOMBIOE.2019.04.015.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUEL.2013.03.013. [46] Why ESK, Ong HC, Lee HV, Gan YY, Chen WH, Chong CT. Renewable aviation fuel
[29] Elkasabi Y, Mullen CA, Pighinelli ALMT, Boateng AA. Hydrodeoxygenation of fast- by advanced hydroprocessing of biomass: challenges and perspective. Energy
pyrolysis bio-oils from various feedstocks using carbon-supported catalysts. Fuel Convers Manag 2019;199:112015. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
Process Technol 2014;123:11–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2014.01.039. ENCONMAN.2019.112015.
[30] Okolie JA, Awotoye D, Tabat ME, Okoye PU, Epelle EI, Ogbaga CC, et al. Multi- [47] Kandaramath Hari T, Yaakob Z, Binitha NN. Aviation biofuel from renewable
criteria decision analysis for the evaluation and screening of sustainable aviation resources: routes, opportunities and challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;
fuel production pathways. IScience 2023;26. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ISCI.20 42:1234–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2014.10.095.
23.106944. [48] Gruber H, Groß P, Rauch R, Reichhold A, Zweiler R, Aichernig C, et al. Fischer-
[31] Liu YC, Wang WC. Process design and evaluations for producing pyrolytic jet fuel. Tropsch products from biomass-derived syngas and renewable hydrogen. Biomass
Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 2020;14:249–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/BBB.2061. Convers Biorefin 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-019-00459-5.
[32] Mukherjee A, Okolie JA, Niu C, Dalai AK. Techno – economic analysis of activated [49] Campanario FJ, Gutiérrez Ortiz FJ. Fischer-Tropsch biofuels production from
carbon production from spent coffee grounds: comparative evaluation of different syngas obtained by supercritical water reforming of the bio-oil aqueous phase.
production routes. Energy Convers Manage: X 2022;14:100218. https://doi.org/ Energy Convers Manag 2017;150:599–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
10.1016/J.ECMX.2022.100218. enconman.2017.08.053.
[33] Tabat ME, Omoarukhe FO, Güleç F, Adeniyi DE, Mukherjee A, Okoye PU, et al. [50] Jungbluth N, Meili C. Recommendations for calculation of the global warming
Process design, exergy, and economic assessment of a conceptual mobile potential of aviation including the radiative forcing index. Int J Life Cycle Assess
autothermal methane pyrolysis unit for onsite hydrogen production. Energy 2019;24:404–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11367-018-1556-3/METRICS.
Convers Manag 2023;278:116707. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. [51] Wang WC, Liu YC, Nugroho RAA. Techno-economic analysis of renewable jet fuel
ENCONMAN.2023.116707. production: the comparison between Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and pyrolysis.
[34] Oklahoma Minimum Wage in 2023 | Square | Square n.d. https://squareup.com/ Energy 2022;239:121970. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2021.121970.
us/en/the-bottom-line/managing-your-finances/guide-to-oklahoma-minimum- [52] Staples MD, Malina R, Barrett SRH. The limits of bioenergy for mitigating global
wage (accessed October 4, 2023). life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. Nature Energy 2017;2:1–8.
[35] Labor Market n.d. https://oklahoma.gov/oesc/labor-market.html (accessed https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.202.
October 8, 2023). [53] Woolf D, Amonette JE, Street-Perrott FA, Lehmann J, Joseph S. Sustainable biochar
[36] Rocha MH, Capaz RS, Lora EES, Nogueira LAH, Leme MMV, Renó MLG, et al. Life to mitigate global climate change. Nature Commun 2010;1:1–9. https://doi.org
cycle assessment (LCA) for biofuels in Brazilian conditions: a meta-analysis. Renew /10.1038/ncomms1053.
Sustain Energy Rev 2014;37:435–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
RSER.2014.05.036.

14