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?

The comments to this entry are closed.