Survey finds optimism and skepticism about future of integrated biorefineries
by Ken Patrick
Most bioenergy professionals believe
that chemical pulp mills, in particular, are ideal platforms
for integrating biorefinery capacity, although a majority
of the same experts sampled by Bioenergy Technologies
Quarterly at last year's International Bioenergy
and Bioproducts Conference (IBBC) in Memphis, Tenn.,
USA, don't see very many U.S./North American pulp and
paper mills doing so in the foreseeable future--within
the next two to three years anyway.
More than half of the 200-plus attendees at TAPPI's
second annual IBBC responded to the BTQ survey,
which explored viewpoints on where the industry is moving
as a whole in the bioenergy arena, who is taking the
lead, and what some of the key drivers and issues are.
Results in this article are expressed as a percentage.
Thus 50% can generally be interpreted as 50 responses,
though this can vary by up to 10, since participants
did not respond to all questions in the survey.
Some 90% of respondents thought that chemical pulp mills do have significant existing infrastructure and feedstock supply advantages over standalone biorefineries. However, only 38% felt that the U.S./North America industry would actually begin integrating commercial biorefinery capacity on a meaningful scale in the foreseeable future. Most of the 62% who did not see North American paper/forest companies taking the integrated biorefinery lead globally, thought that probably Scandinavia would be the first out of the gate, with just a handful thinking Europe and/or South America might be first.
The 32% who did think that U.S./Canadian mills would likely implement biorefinery capacity in the next few years believed the following players would be among "the first with the most," in the order listed:
- NewPage
- International Paper
- Weyerhaeuser
- Flambeau River
- Buckeye Technologies
- Clearwater, Alabama River, Rayonier, Old Town,
- MeadWestvaco
- Georgia-Pacific
- Tembec, Verso, Domtar
- PCA
IMPEDIMENTS TO PROGRESS
The reasons why most respondents were somewhat negative
about the near future outlook for integrated pulp
mill biorefinery developments, especially in the U.S.,
are complex and not so easily identified, typically
being a combination of several factors. When asked
what are some of the hindrances or major impediments,
using a scale of 1 (greatest impediment) to 5 (least
impediment), most respondents ranked high capital
costs as No. 1, followed by current financial conditions
in the paper industry as the No. 2 impediment.
However, the complexity of factors makes further
consensus difficult as shown in the following list
of raw scores (percentage of total ratings as No.
1).
- Capital costs (26%)
- Current financial conditions of the pulp and paper
industry (22%)
- Insufficient or immature technology (17%)
- Lack of paper industry leadership/vision (9%)
- Global economic downturn (8%)
- Fluctuating or currently low petroleum prices
(7%)
- Insufficient government support (6%)
- Insufficient investment interest from the financial
community (5%)
APPROACHES AND PLANS
Not surprisingly, respondents believe that both thermochemical
and chemical-biochemical-catalytic approaches/routes,
with a sprinkling of pyrolysis technologies, are most
feasible and most likely for integration with chemical
pulp mill operations. Thermochemcial was viewed as
most likely, being selected by some 46% of respondents,
followed by chemical-biochemical-catalytic at 40%,
and pyrolysis techniques with 14% of the responses.
Perhaps most surprising, almost a third of the participants
in this survey responding to a specific question indicated
that their companies plan to integrate biorefinery
capacity in the relatively near future. The other
two thirds noted that either they did not know of
any such plans, or checked that there had been discussions
but no defined plans yet.
Some of those who marked yes, that their companies
did have specific plans, provided various input regarding
timeframe, technology/conversion route, location,
and type of pulp mill. This input included the following:
- Sludge to ethanol (2-3 years), Northeast, kraft
- Biochemical, 2 years, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan,
kraft
- Methanol recovery
- Ethanol production, methane generation from waste
sludge, by 2012, Western U.S., integrated pulp and
paper mill
- TRI technology, two kraft mills
- Pyrolysis, 3 years, North Florida, dissolving
pulp mill
- Completing study with a +/- capital cost estimate
and proposal to management by first quarter 2010,
Southeast pulp mill
- Pyrolysis, next 2-3 years, Finland, kraft pulp
mill
- Lignin recovery, pyrolysis and gasification, in
5 years, U.S. hardwood pulp mill
- Upgrade recovery boiler/new condensing turbine/gasifier,
Florida dissolving pulp mill
- Pilot plant biorefinery, biological conversion,
ethanol and chemicals, 2010, U.S. South pulp mill.
- The naval stores industry I'm part of has been
a "biorefinery" for more than half a century.
BIOENERGY OR PAPER
Since first appearing on the industry's "radar screen,"
around the turn of this century, biorefinery operations,
integrated and/or standalone, have been skeptically
viewed by some as competitive with and possibly detrimental
to the production of pulp and paper.
When asked could/will biorefinery operations drive
up the cost of cellulosic feedstocks and economically
hinder/damage pulp and paper manufacture, only 12%
selected the hardcore "yes, and the industry should
focus on what it does best--make paper products."
Some 80% selected the modified "yes, but the industry
could feasibly do both by proper planning and execution."
From this perspective, "yes," could be as reasonably
interpreted as "no," i.e., "not if handled properly."
The remaining 8% believed that biorefineries would
have no negative or competitive impact on pulp and
paper mills at all.
Most respondents strongly believed that from the
overall, long-term bioenergy viewpoint, biofuels and
bioproducts are the most effective use of biomass,
compared with direct burning of these feedstocks in
high efficiency, low emissions fluidized bed boilers,
for example. Some 82% said "yes," 10% chose "no,"
and 8% were unsure.
About 35% of respondents indentified themselves by
type of company, job title, and location. Approximately
45% of these were from pulp and paper companies/mills
in North America (primarily the U.S. South and Midwest),
with a sprinkling from around the world, most being
process engineers. Likewise, some 45% were from supplier
companies, mainly engineering-construction groups,
with titles ranging from president to sales person.
The remaining 10% was from academia, including professors
and students, and a couple of investment companies.
Ken Patrick is Editor of Bioenergy Technologies
Quarterly. Contact him at kpatrick@tappi.org,
for a more complete version of the survey including
specific comments/ideas from participants.
|