Study finds slow growth for wood-to-biofuels projects

Producing biofuels from wood is a complicated technological process and is not expected to take hold at a commercial scale for more than a decade, according to a study recently conducted by timberland analysis firm Forisk Consulting LLC.

Forisk has been tracking every wood-using bioenergy project in the U.S. for the past couple of years. The company is following 453 projects that are currently using, or are planning to use, wood products to produce pellets, electricity or liquid biofuels. Of the 36 biofuel project currently being developed throughout the U.S., Forisk has determined that none are currently viable and, while a few projects may reach commercial viability within the next 10 years, technical hurdles will likely require up to 20 years of development for others. On average, the firm has determined that wood-based biofuels will not contribute significantly to the renewable fuel standard until at least 2022.

In order to reach this determination, Forisk conducted an examination of 12 conversion pathways to produce liquid biofuels using gasification, hydrolysis and fermentation or pyrolysis methods. Forisk contributed its experience in tracking projects and their performance based on two screening criteria: the technology’s proven ability to work at a commercial scale and the status of the project’s development. The Schiamberg Group, which specializes in the evaluation of emerging technologies, including biofuels, contributed its expertise to the technology reviews. Forisk has made available its complete analysis in a study titled, “Transportation Fuels from Wood: Investment and Market Implications of Current Projects and Technologies.”

Brooks Mendell, principal investigator and co-author of Forisk’s study, said some of the more promising technologies evaluated include gasification, specifically the use of microbes in gasification processes, and catalytic fast pyrolysis processes. Liquid biofuel projects tracked by Forisk include renewable diesel as well as cellulosic ethanol. Mendell said that in terms of production, cellulosic ethanol may be able to be commercialized first. “When you start looking at the processes and technologies, some of the cellulosic ethanol looks more do-able sooner,” he said. “The problem is that they’re producing a product that runs into some major legislative issues, primarily the blend wall.” Meanwhile, other liquid fuels projects, such as those that would produce biodiesel, jet fuel or butanol, represent a greater opportunity for widespread use, he said.

Wood-to-biofuels projects also face stiff competition for feedstock. Not only are there multiple traditional wood product markets, but the electricity and pellet mill industries are ramping up their use of wood products as well, Mendell said. “While technologists and investors are figuring out the liquid fuel sector projects, pellet plants and electricity plants are being built and starting to operate,” he said. “So there’s a growing pool of competitors for the raw materials that these projects need, and by the time they get it figured out and built, they may face a situation where they’ll have a hard time getting access to that raw material.”

Forest managers and owners may not necessarily embrace the new market option either, he said. “Timberland owners get approached every day by wood bioenergy developers because they want a wood supply agreement or they want them to know that they’re interested in moving into their local market,” Mendell said. “It’s not necessarily in their interests to tie down their supplies to one specific sector.”

One option with potential for biofuels production is the use of woodwaste from landfills, such as being explored by Enerkem Inc. and other cellulosic ethanol producers, Mendell said. “There appears to be a nice synergy in some of those cases, where that’s not a resource that’s being tapped into by the other guys,” he said. As for projects such as ZeaChem Inc., which recently announced a long-term feedstock supply agreement with a major wood supplier, Mendell said his firm won’t count it as a significant advance until wood is actually delivered to the plant. “It’s a step forward for the firm, definitely, [but] it doesn’t move the needle in the market,” he said.