## 3 Results and Discussion
This method is based on comparing individual values with the best possible value and then summing up the individual components that characterize the process or project. According to the weighted sum method, the efficiency indicator can be calculated using the following formula:  
\[\text{O}_{2}=-0.0012P+17.547 \tag{1}\]3  
where \(\overline{x_{i}}\) is the normalized characteristic, \(w_{i}\) is the weight coefficient, and \(n\) is the number of characteristics. The normalization of the values of each parameter (characteristic) is performed relative to the best-known value. Table 4 shows the initial data for calculating the efficiency, as well as the criterion for normalizing the values included in the final performance indicator. The rationing logic is based on the fact that pyrolysis is more efficient when less energy is spent on the process and more biomass is converted into combustible gases. The calculations in this work are performed for three cases of priority distribution: (1) all characteristics have the same weight; (2) the main priority (\(w=0.5\)) is assigned to minimizing the energy consumed for pyrolysis, and the remaining coefficients are distributed evenly; (3) the main priority (\(w=0.5\)) is assigned to maximizing the yield of combustible gases (methane, hydrogen, and carbon monoxide), and the remaining coefficients are distributed evenly. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Characteristic**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Criteria for Normalization**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Microwave Power (W)**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & **840** & **1760** & **2200** \\ \hline CO (\%) & maximization & 3.2 & 3.3 & 8.07 \\ H\({}_{2}\) (\%) & maximization & 0.18 & 0.55 & 0.7 \\ CH\({}_{4}\) (\%) & maximization & 0.5 & 1.44 & 2.45 \\ CO\({}_{2}\) (\%) & minimization & 3.5 & 3.6 & 5.05 \\ Delay time of gas yield (s) & minimization & 820 & 390 & 38 \\ Mass of solid residue (g) & minimization & 6.4 & 3.1 & 1.2 \\ Consumed energy for pyrolysis (MJ) & minimization & 1,058,400 & 1,584,000 & 1,320,000 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Input data for calculating the integral efficiency index of microwave pyrolysis. Figure 6: Yield of solid (**a**) and liquid (**b**) pyrolysis products relative to the dry feedstock mass with varying microwave power. The results of the efficiency calculation are presented in Figure 7. It is clearly seen that the efficiency is maximum at high microwave power. It is important that high performance was achieved regardless of the distribution of priority. So, for example, with a 50% dominance of the weight coefficient for minimizing energy costs for pyrolysis, the final efficiency indicator decreased by only 15% compared to the case where the weight coefficients were evenly distributed. That is, despite the fact that an increase in the reactor power entails an increase in the energy consumption for pyrolysis, these costs are integrally compensated by a more efficient physical and chemical conversion of the feedstock. The overall efficiency of microwave pyrolysis was minimal at the lowest reactor power. At the same time, the efficiency increased as expected when the main priority was given to minimizing the energy consumed for pyrolysis. The efficiency indicator in this case increased by 50-60% in comparison with other priority options. In other cases (that is, at powers of 1760 W and 2200 W), varying the priority of certain parameters did not give such significant differences in the integral efficiency of microwave pyrolysis. An increase in microwave power from 840 W to 2200 W contributed to an increase in the pyrolysis efficiency indicator by 1.3-2.2 times. In the case when the priority was given to maximizing the production of combustible gases, the increase in power showed the greatest impact on the integral biomass pyrolysis efficiency index.