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).

1. Capital costs (26%)
2. Current financial conditions of the pulp and paper industry (22%)
3. Insufficient or immature technology (17%)
4. Lack of paper industry leadership/vision (9%)
5. Global economic downturn (8%)
6. Fluctuating or currently low petroleum prices (7%)
7. Insufficient government support (6%)
8. 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.