In this study, highly accurate measurements of density and dynamic viscosities of a recombined live oil and its mixture with additional CO₂were performed. The experiments were carried out under pressure and temperature gradients found in Brazilian Pre-salt reservoirs, that is, in the pressure range from (27.6 to 68.9) MPa and at (333.15 and 353.15) K. The assumption of volume change on mixing is evaluated from the experimental results, and the influence of pressure and temperature on the volume change upon mixing is assessed. The densities of mixtures are calculated considering (i) the excess volume approach, and (ii) no volume change. The densities are better correlated using the excess volume approach with Average Absolute Deviations (AAD) of 0.03%. Thirteen mixing rules of viscosity are examined by comparing the predicted values with the experimental viscosity of the recombined live oil + CO₂mixture. The performance of some rules using compositional fractions (molar, volume and weight) is also evaluated. Thus, a total of 28 different ways to calculate the mixture viscosities were tested in this study. The worst result was obtained with Bingham’s method, leading to 148.6% AAD. The best result was obtained from Lederer’s method with 2% AAD and a maximum deviation of 5.8% using volume fractions and the fitting parameterα. In addition, deviations presented by the predictive methods of Chevron, Double log, and Kendall did not exceed 9% AAD, using weight fractions (Chevron and Double log) and molar fractions (Kendall and Monroe).

The Brazilian Policy foresees the waste management hierarchy, according to which energy reuse from waste is preferred to final disposal. However, less than 0.2% of the country’s waste goes to energy production. This paper proposes sustainability indicators to support the decision to choose the best process to treat municipal solid waste (MSW) through bioenergy generation technologies. Then, we conduct a case study for Rio de Janeiro. Incineration and gasification were not economically feasible—despite TRL 9 and 8. However, the projects presented a null net present value by increasing the gate fee to 94.69 and 255.39 USD/ton of MSW, respectively. The social indicators (job creation, salary increase with the absorption of waste pickers, population served, reduction in MSW sent to landfill) did not indicate the best technology. The results of the environmental indicators for incineration and gasification were, respectively, 0.45 and 0.37 t CO_2eq/t_MSW for GWP, 1.49 and 1.23 MWh/t_MSW for energy intensity, 1.24 and 6.14 m³/t_MSW for water intensity, 39.3 and 27.9 m²/t_MSW for land use and 0.135 and 0.088 t SO_2eq/t_MSW for acidification. Gasification presented better results on 60% of the environmental indicators. However, incineration scored better in the important ones, water and energy intensities, in addition to the technical–economic aspect.

The Brazilian Policy foresees the waste management hierarchy, according to which energy reuse from waste is preferred to final disposal. However, less than 0.2% of the country's waste goes to energy production. This paper proposes sustainability indicators to support the decision to choose the best process to treat municipal solid waste (MSW) through bioenergy generation technologies. Then, we conduct a case study for Rio de Janeiro. Incineration and gasification were not economically feasible – despite TRL 9 and 8. However, the projects presented null net present value by increasing the gate fee to 94.69 and 255.39 USD/ton of MSW, respectively. The social indicators (job creation, salary increase with the absorption of waste pickers, population served, reduction in MSW sent to landfill) did not indicate the best technology. The results of the environmental indicators for incineration and gasification were, respectively, 0.45 and 0.37 t CO2eq/tMSW for GWP, 1.49 and 1.23 MWh/tMSW for energy intensity, 1.24 and 6.14 m³/tMSW for water intensity, 39.3 and 27.9 m²/tMSW for land use and 0.135 and 0.088 t SO2eq/tMSW for acidification. Gasification presented better results on 60% of the environmental indicators. However, incineration was better in important ones, water and energy intensities, besides the technical-economic aspect.