cellulosic ethanol industry. Obstacles include the high costs of some of the current conver- sion technologies, a lack of funding and inves- tors, the recent economic slowdown, and low or falling crude oil and fuel ethanol prices. It seems that for these reasons, newer operations tend to keep a low profile. Some ventures will surface only briefly and then disappear; others will announce their presence only once they are close to being fully operational. By far, likely the greatest challenge is in mak- ing cellulosic ethanol production an economical enterprise. Some methods may be closer to this than others. For example, gasification tech- nologies that can take negative-cost or no-cost feedstock may have an advantage over those that must purchase feedstocks. However, the ultimate outcome will depend on factors such as feedstock availability, enzyme costs, and catalyst costs, to name a few. Most proponents believe that it is important to continue to develop mul- tiple technologies. Technological challenges are a consider- able hurdle to the economical production of cellulosic ethanol. Both the separation of the tightly bound lignin and cellulose and the production of enzymes to break down cellu- lose are expensive, and much of the research and development focuses on improving these steps. Integrating the biochemical or thermo- chemical processes with final fermentation and/or distillation is also a factor. However, the difficulty cited most often is in obtaining financing for research, devel- opment, and scaling up processes. “We’re delighted to have received government sup- port,” says Greenfield’s Dottori, “But it isn’t available at the same level as elsewhere.” He thinks that this could put Canadian compa- nies at a competitive disadvantage. MacLachlan of Lignol agrees. “We need government assistance on the capital to get the technology through the first few scale-ups that are required.” In addition, he says, “We need government policy that gives some certainty to the market, something that says ethanol is here to stay. We need to have firm markets.” “I think it’s very key that the government, which has a vested interest in seeing an alter- nate fuel economy grow, be very supportive of projects like ours,” says Enerkem’s Chornet. “I think that government has to be at the centre of this industry, with a barrel of oil that is still close to $60 today. We’re seeing strong signals of that happening in the United States with the stimulus package, and also in Canada, with the government supporting the 5% mandate and announcing new funding programs.” A particular complication that MacLach- lan identifies for wood-based cellulosic etha- nol production is the capacity to access the resource. For companies that obtain wood waste feedstocks from the forest industry, forest tenure policies can be problematic, he says. For instance, a sawmill that provides wood waste could close, but its access to the underling timber assets might still be held by the parent company, making the timber and associated biomass off-limits to other users. “So forest tenure reform, to start making the underlying biomass available to applications in other technology, is really critical.” Regardless, biomass producers will have to look elsewhere until cellulosic ethanol plants are ready to begin processing biomass on a large scale. Until cellulosic ethanol be- comes economically viable and facilities re- quire a steady stream of biomass, forestry and agriculture will need to explore other uses of biomass such as power generation, combined heat and power, district heating, pellet pro- duction, and other markets. • 14 canadianBIOMASS SepteMBeR/OctOBeR 2009
Canadian Biomass September/October 2009: Page 14
