Techno‐economic and market analysis of two emerging forest biorefining technologies

Abstract

A new forest biorefining model is emerging in which high‐value materials would be produced alongside a cellulosic sugar by‐product in facilities scaled to match fiber availability in northern forests. As these emerging biorefining technologies are being developed by private entities, the economics associated with them are little known. The goal of this study is to use publicly available information to carry out an initial techno‐economic assessment for two emerging biorefining technologies: one that produces sugar and hydrolysis lignin (H‐lignin) from thermomechanical pulping (TMP) and another that produces sugar, lignosulfonate, and nanocellulose. The break‐even price for H‐lignin and nanocellulose is estimated for the respective technology and a credit is applied for cellulosic sugar and other co‐product sales based on current market value. It was found that the minimum product selling price (MPSP) for H‐lignin was within the range of high purity lignin but not enough is known about the properties of H‐lignin to determine if this is a reasonable value for prospective end uses. The estimated MPSP of nanocellulose was found to be considerably lower than for more conventional nanocellulose‐producing methods that use Kraft or dissolving pulp as a starting point. The nanocellulose produced through the second process modeled has different properties than conventional nanocellulose, which need to be further explored. Having a sense of the cost to produce these novel materials will help to direct research on viable end uses. The methodology presented, using only publicly available information, can also be replicated for other emerging technologies. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Nanocellulose: Resources, Physio-Chemical Properties, Current Uses and Future Applications

“…An increase in CAPEX due to acid recovery increased the MSP from 4,829 to 5,125 USD/dry ton (de Assis et al, 2017). A recent TEA study reported equipment cost contributed to 65% of CAPEX, with chemical recovery section specifically accounting for 22% of CAPEX (Blair et al, 2021). This study reported a relatively lower MSP at 1,656 USD/ton, explained by the lower feedstock handling cost.…”

“…Production cost depends on the pretreatment method, acid used for hydrolysis, and the feedstock cost. Production costs reported in literature varies widely from 2,000 to 10,000 USD/ton (de Assis et al, 2017;Jiang et al, 2018;Blair et al, 2021). CNC production via conventional sulfuric acid hydrolysis mandates acid-resistant equipment that increases the capital expenditure (CAPEX).…”

“…Such assessment studies help in identification of the process improvement opportunities to improve the material and energy efficiency. Even though a few LCA studies are available in public domain, TEA studies for CNCs and particularly CNFs are quite limited (de Assis et al, 2017;de Assis et al, 2017;Bondancia et al, 2020;Blair et al, 2021) This work reviews these existing studies and summarizes the key learning and research gaps.…”

A comprehensive review of nanocellulose modification and applications in papermaking and packaging: Challenges, technical solutions, and perspectives

“…Commercialization of technologies for producing NC from kraft or dissolving pulp has occurred recently. Pulp is a costly raw material that necessitates rigorous, often energy-intensive chemical or mechanical processing (Blair and Mabee 2021). Additionally, chemical costs and investment in manufacturing equipment and paper machines, are other factors that influence the cost of NC manufacture (Li et al 2021a).…”

“…When cellulose is modified chemically, mechanically, or enzymatically, it can be used in a variety of applications (Fotie et al 2020). Therefore, in addition to the preparation of NC, the cost of treatment should be considered, which is currently an expensive process (Nelson et al 2016;Blair and Mabee 2021).…”