Caterpillar introduces first model in new line of hydraulic hybrid excavators
BP awards Colorado State University $5M to research technology for oil recovery from watered-out wells

California Energy Commission selects 7 biofuel companies for almost $27M in funding

The California Energy Commission (CEC) has selected seven companies as proposed recipients for $26,896,373 in Round 2 of awards from a solicitation released under the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program (ARFVTP) to provide funding for the development of new, California-based biofuel production facilities that can sustainably produce low-carbon transportation fuels.

Maximum funding available for this grant solicitation, which was issued in January, was $37.69 million; the Energy Commission reserved the right to increase total funding under this solicitation by up to an additional $30 million. The Commission released Round 1 of the proposed awards in March. Of the seven Round 2 proposed award recipients, two produce diesel substitutes ($8,641,723); two produce gasoline substitutes ($9,664,657); and three produce biomethane ($8,589,993).

Actual funding of the proposed projects is contingent upon the approval of these projects at a publicly noticed Business Meeting at the Energy Commission in Sacramento, California, and execution of a grant agreement. If the Energy Commission is unable to negotiate and execute a funding agreement with an Applicant, the Energy Commission may cancel the pending award and fund the next highest ranking application within the Round 2 NOPA (Notice of Proposed Awards).

The proposed Round 2 awardees (and fuel categories) are:

  • Buster Biofuels LLC (diesel). $2,641,723 for the Escondido Biorefinery 2nd Generation (EB2G).

  • Eslinger Biodiesel, Inc. (diesel). $6,000,000 to support the development of biodiesel production at Kinder Morgan distribution terminals.

  • Mendota Bioenergy, LLC (MBLLC) (gasoline). $5,000,000 towards the Advanced Biorefinery Center-Mendota Integrated Demonstration Plant.

  • ZeaChem, Inc. (gasoline). $4,664,657 for the development of a pilot plant to scale up the company’s C3 product platform for advanced biofuel production.

  • Tulare County Compost & Biomass Inc. (biomethane). $4,787,694 for the TCCBI Biomethane Production Facility.

  • Environ Strategy Consultants, Inc. (biomethane). $2,422,740 to develop a system for anaerobic digestion of food waste to create biomethane CNG fuel.

  • Blue Line Transfer Inc. (biomethane). $2,590,929 for the Blue Line Biogenic CNG Facility.



I think that the compagnies using co2, water and electricity as a feedstock have a higher potential for success and high production rate then the ones using food or waisted matters as feedstock. I won't buy any new biofuel from anyone if it's not cheaper and less polluting . Im currently on the market to find butanol at a cheaper price then the actual gasoline sold everywhere made from costly feedstock with hard refining consuming and waisting plenty of energy and rejecting polluting co2, carbon monoxide, acids, sulfur, etc.


A next generation PHEV and roof top solar panels may solve most of your liquid fuel problem?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)