Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
GM Drops More Money On Non-Food Based Cellulosic Ethanol
gas2.org — General Motors announced today it would be entering into a strategic relationship with Mascoma Corp., a second-generation biofuel company with the technology to produce cellulosic ethanol from non-food sources via a single-step biochemical conversion.
jaybol- 726 diggs
- digg it
- Fangsinmybeard, on 05/02/2008, -5/+12It's a bad patch, but at least it doesn't cut into our food resources. Now all we have to do is find a way to make refrigeration suits cheaper. Oh and make lighter weight oxygen tanks.
- SteveHamn, on 05/02/2008, -6/+4Electric cars FTW. All this other garbage (Hybrids/Biofuels/etc) FTL
- norman619, on 05/02/2008, -3/+4OK. Say we all dumped our gas loving cars for Battery powered cars. You have any idea how many cars we are talking about? Probably not. Now think about the batteries these cars will be using up and then needing to dispose of. I'm betting you never gave much thought to how we would be disposing of the massive number of large car batteries. Didn't give any thought to how toxic the batteries are and the environmental impact. Nope. It just sounds like a great feel good idea but it too has its nasty set of environmental negatives.
- BlueSkyfish, on 05/02/2008, -2/+3You could just recycle those batteries.
- marx2k, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2Hm, properly disposing/recycling of car batteries versus all of the ***** that gets put into the air, grownd and water from current autos. Yeah, I just can't decide.
- chaosium, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2Are these going to be pedal-powered ELECTRIC cars? How the hell are you going to get the efficiency up enough to make them any more useful for transporting and storing the energy?
- norman619, on 05/02/2008, -3/+4OK. Say we all dumped our gas loving cars for Battery powered cars. You have any idea how many cars we are talking about? Probably not. Now think about the batteries these cars will be using up and then needing to dispose of. I'm betting you never gave much thought to how we would be disposing of the massive number of large car batteries. Didn't give any thought to how toxic the batteries are and the environmental impact. Nope. It just sounds like a great feel good idea but it too has its nasty set of environmental negatives.
- norman619, on 05/02/2008, -3/+2Never made much sense to turn your food into fuel for your car. But that's just common sense talking. Never mind.
- chaosium, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1It doesn't work, but for reasons completely unrelated to whatever you're thinking.
- axis, on 05/02/2008, -2/+1It was late last night and I was watching C-Span and they had one of the heads of the farmers union on and he was talking about cutting in to the food supply and using it as non-food products. I believe he said 8% of the corn produced in America goes to your table. 20% is shipped out of the country, and the rest is split between feed for livestock and making fructose. So let's not think we are killing ourselves by dipping into corn for fuel production.
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/senate-joint-eco ...- marx2k, on 05/02/2008, -1/+0I agree with that. Watch the movie King Corn. It pretty much jives with what you're talking about.
- axis, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Apparently we made bad comments and got dugg down, but I did find the movie and am going to check out. Thanks for the heads up, I found it interesting watching that on C-Span, so more info will be good.
- chaosium, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1Wah wah give us more subsidies wah.
- marx2k, on 05/02/2008, -1/+0I agree with that. Watch the movie King Corn. It pretty much jives with what you're talking about.
- carlosglz, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2If you have seen Who Killed the Electric Car, you will understand why GM wants to continue with internal combustion engines. They could care less if it is ethanol, corn or crap burning in the engine, as long as it is an internal combustion engine. You see, electric engines and components last much longer are far less complex to manufacture. GM makes a huge amount of their revenue from replacement parts for internal combustion engines and of course all of the associated parts that eventually break down as well. Also, creating an electric car from scratch does not require as much investment/research/testing as creating an internal combustion engine car ( http://www.teslamotors.com/ ) and it would mean more and more competition for them in the future.
- SteveHamn, on 05/02/2008, -6/+4Electric cars FTW. All this other garbage (Hybrids/Biofuels/etc) FTL
- claybodie, on 05/02/2008, -3/+8Despite this and the investment in Coskata (other cellulosic company), GM says they aren't in the "fuel business"... how many equity shares do you have to have in ethanol companies before you qualify as a fuel company too?
- redcolumbine, on 05/02/2008, -3/+7They ought to just draft all the termites out of New Orleans and set them to chewing KUDZU.
- thcobbs, on 05/02/2008, -2/+4That would give the Southern US a huge boon in fuel.
- TJ11240, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2This answers some questions
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...
- jjive, on 05/02/2008, -10/+4Here's a typical comment from a GM meeting.
"Peak oil has arrived, but the Sun is still shinning.' - jjive, on 05/02/2008, -4/+15There's nothing like declining profits to make a corporation investigate alternative sources of energy.
- earlycj5, on 05/02/2008, -2/+14Isn't that kinda how the whole idea of free enterprise was supposed to work? The whole "This isn't working anymore, let's try this." idea?
- davewashere, on 05/02/2008, -0/+7A more aware company in a free enterprise system would have recognized the troubled road ahead a decade ago instead of churning out SUVs for the quick buck. GM is losing market share because they waited until it wasn't working anymore. People will complain about plants closing and job loses, but this is free enterprise working at its finest: the cream rises to the top, while near-sighted companies like GM sink to the bottom.
- chaosium, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1"A more aware company in a free enterprise system"
Free enterprise is about profit, not awareness. - marx2k, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1Successful free enterprise also includes thinking ahead.
- chaosium, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2Looking ahead ten, twenty years or so, sure as anything not more than a hundred.
Their shareholders DO NOT WANT them thinking about long-term goals they will never be alive to see, nor will they ever profit off of. - Bilabrin, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1I don't know about all that. The shareholders have families and legacies of their own to think about. Posterity is not limited to corporations.
- chaosium, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2Looking ahead ten, twenty years or so, sure as anything not more than a hundred.
- chaosium, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1"A more aware company in a free enterprise system"
- davewashere, on 05/02/2008, -0/+7A more aware company in a free enterprise system would have recognized the troubled road ahead a decade ago instead of churning out SUVs for the quick buck. GM is losing market share because they waited until it wasn't working anymore. People will complain about plants closing and job loses, but this is free enterprise working at its finest: the cream rises to the top, while near-sighted companies like GM sink to the bottom.
- earlycj5, on 05/02/2008, -2/+14Isn't that kinda how the whole idea of free enterprise was supposed to work? The whole "This isn't working anymore, let's try this." idea?
- reisrocks, on 05/02/2008, -4/+11"proprietary microorganims" lol
- breckinshire, on 05/02/2008, -4/+1That was my band name in college!
- Nhmarine, on 05/02/2008, -9/+3It seems like a good idea for them to expedite our conversion to ethanol, but ethanol is less efficient than oil at a lot of things, for example, pollution. And lowering gas prices, what a catastrophe. Who would want less pollution and lower prices? GM is heading for a rough time if they don't consider that.
- galeninjapan, on 05/02/2008, -4/+29I thought big corporations like this were evil. That's what digg taught me
- TJ11240, on 05/02/2008, -4/+9They might be evil, but their not stupid. GM is running a business, and if continuing their production of high profit SUVs means finding a new source of fuel, so be it. It just so happens this time the solution is a green one. Don't expect GM, with such a bad environmental history, to suddenly become the earth's savior.
- anothersaab, on 05/02/2008, -5/+3well said.
- IllBeBack, on 05/02/2008, -5/+1But not well-written.
- fpcyber, on 05/02/2008, -3/+6This and the Chevrolet Volt, don't you think that would change a whole lot?
- TJ11240, on 05/02/2008, -7/+1The volt might have some potential, but its going to end up costing $48,000. GM had the ability to mass produce an affordable electric car, but they killed it off after a successful trial.
Watch "Who Killed the Electric Car" and tell me GM isn't evil
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-720274006 ...- thcobbs, on 05/02/2008, -2/+4Yes, the car worked.... but there was no market for it. Now, there is a huge market and it will have a ~600 mile range.
- marx2k, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1The movie plainly shows there was a market for it, thcobbs
- TJ11240, on 05/02/2008, -7/+1The volt might have some potential, but its going to end up costing $48,000. GM had the ability to mass produce an affordable electric car, but they killed it off after a successful trial.
- thcobbs, on 05/02/2008, -4/+9I think Winston Churchill said it best: "You can count on the Americans to do the right thing.... after all other alternatives have been exhausted."
- Lazydriver, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1they're* not their
- anothersaab, on 05/02/2008, -5/+3well said.
- relic180, on 05/02/2008, -4/+10They may be acting in the best interests of the planet, but don't be fooled, they're still only doing it for profits. They're trying to get in on the ground floor of something that they're betting will eventually become a major industry.
- thcobbs, on 05/02/2008, -2/+7They're a company... do you really thing they would be doing something to LOSE money?
- relic180, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1The point was that they wouldn't do anything good for the planet or people in general until AFTER they made sure they were going to make lots of money doing it.
- thcobbs, on 05/02/2008, -2/+7They're a company... do you really thing they would be doing something to LOSE money?
- TJ11240, on 05/02/2008, -4/+9They might be evil, but their not stupid. GM is running a business, and if continuing their production of high profit SUVs means finding a new source of fuel, so be it. It just so happens this time the solution is a green one. Don't expect GM, with such a bad environmental history, to suddenly become the earth's savior.
- vwerf, on 05/02/2008, -4/+8No oil = good
No increased food prices = good
Use of waste materials of switchgrass and corn cobs = very good
No production until after 2010 = load of Crap
Screw them i'll just live on the street in a cardboard box until then- MarlinFische, on 05/02/2008, -2/+6I don't recommend a box, if you are going to be homeless go somewhere on the west coast with decent weather most of the year and live on the beach. I spent more than a year homeless in San Francisco and frankly it was a lot easier a single guy on the streets than it is with crappy jobs support 2 kids
- trumpydumpy, on 05/02/2008, -8/+11If only hemp were legal, we could make ethanol out of it and power all of our vehicles with a highly sustainable and renewable resource, along with all the other things that can be made out of hemp.
http://www.hempcar.org/- MacParrot, on 05/02/2008, -8/+4Yes, but the increased accidents on the road due to breathing exhaust gases just isn't worth it.
- TJ11240, on 05/02/2008, -3/+4American Ad Council, is that you?
- nicktheawesome, on 05/02/2008, -1/+4Actually, douche, ethanol is ethanol. Doesn't matter where it is from, because the end result is still the chemical ethanol. Distillation takes impurities out.
But that is besides the point, as hemp has no THC.- MacParrot, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Scanning...scanning...Nope, no sense of humor detected Captain
- floorman56, on 05/02/2008, -3/+4f only hemp were legal, we could make ethanol out of it
Then tell me ..If is such a good thing how come its not a MAJOR cash crop where it IS legal? How come Canada and Mexico are not the richest country's in the world from the miracle that is hemp?- funk49, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4In Canada, it's most likely due to the fact that the cultivation program has been legal for only 10 years. In Mexico's case, their number #1 source of revenue is money sent back from illegals living in the US, so I wouldn't look to them to develop a cash crop program with it....they can't even figure out how to maximize what they have right now.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_50 ...- floorman56, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2n Canada, it's most likely due to the fact that the cultivation program has been legal for only 10 years.
Thats what I'm saying If its this REALLY great stuff 10 years is all you need to make it a major crop as of 2005 there are still only 22.66 hectares being grown
- floorman56, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2n Canada, it's most likely due to the fact that the cultivation program has been legal for only 10 years.
- funk49, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4In Canada, it's most likely due to the fact that the cultivation program has been legal for only 10 years. In Mexico's case, their number #1 source of revenue is money sent back from illegals living in the US, so I wouldn't look to them to develop a cash crop program with it....they can't even figure out how to maximize what they have right now.
- MacParrot, on 05/02/2008, -8/+4Yes, but the increased accidents on the road due to breathing exhaust gases just isn't worth it.
- Vhaeos, on 05/02/2008, -2/+5When private companies do this it's good, when government does it it's bad.
Good job, GM. - dabura, on 05/02/2008, -12/+3too bad this won't help in sales
STOP manufacturing useless monstrous SUVs that being driven by road-douche
/accord for-the-green- Linh, on 05/02/2008, -4/+5they wouldn't make em if people would just stop buying them as a status symbol.
- JustinHorne, on 05/02/2008, -3/+2"A 19 year-old dude from Asta (US) who joined Digg on May 1st, 2008"
Haha, oh man. First off, I bet you're a ricer, aren't you?
Secondly, man, you've been here all of one day? You don't get to talk yet.- marx2k, on 05/02/2008, -0/+0And yet notice how you get dugg down the moment you open your trap.
- dabura, on 05/02/2008, -5/+0How about some jackass on Digg's staff *accidentally deleted my account* and then mail me a flower e-postcard to apologize?
And what kind of dumbass are you using your own name on the internets? Justin Horne? Thanks for provide enough information to track you down and maybe give you a little phone-rolled?
And who's ***** idea saying new member can't comment? You probably one of those morons on youtube acting *commntz gangstaz* about how long you been here and *****? People have life, fool.
You don't get smart when you're older, so why hoping ?- BrainDance, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2Umm, chill out?
- dabura, on 05/02/2008, -0/+0sure, where's teh cake?
- BrainDance, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2Umm, chill out?
- cg4et, on 05/02/2008, -1/+19If the government would stop subsidizing corn-based ethanol, maybe more companies would invest in R&D to come up with more viable alternatives.
Of course, having said this, I will never have a chance of winning the Iowa Caucuses. My Presidential ambitions are forever dashed.- br0ck, on 05/02/2008, -2/+3Obama won Iowa and he is actually a very strong supporter of cellulosic solutions. "Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013." http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
- edebolt, on 05/02/2008, -5/+2the only problem with this myth is that corn based ethanol minimally impacts grain prices. The extraction of ethanol cuts directly into the supply of HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) but the processing steps still yield the same amounts of corn stark material, corn seed, corn silk and high protein corn feed. There is one step of the process that extracts the sugars with one method for ethanol versus a different method for extraction of HFCS raw material. It is also true that corn based ethanol dictates using a tropical corn type versus the normal 3C and 4C breed. The tropical type produces nearly the same seed, stalk, silk and feed as the 3C,4C. It is impacting prices but far less than people are crying about.
- GreatNorthern, on 05/02/2008, -2/+5all so true. when people cry about ethanol subsidies, do they realized EVERYTHING is being subsidized right now? oil, everything? let's not act like ethanol is getting preferential treatment here in ways of extravagant subsidies.
- edebolt, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1as a follow on I would point out that all commodities have been increasing. People are trying to blame corn for all of these increases? Does that make any sense? My take as a currency and futures trader is that hedge funds have taken their positions out of the Dollar and short yen(carry trade) and throwing them into gold, oil, grains, etc etc to find some returns. IMO its just a bubble due to a huge amount of money on the sidelines looking for investment vehicles.
- tehmark, on 05/02/2008, -4/+1cheers! Hopefully our stuff will run on old corn husks in the future!
- samury, on 05/02/2008, -8/+4Stop using stuff you can use to feed people for gas!
- floorman56, on 05/02/2008, -3/+2You do know the corn doesn't "disappear" when you use it for ethanol? look up the term "brewers grain"
and somehow when Jim Beam and others does the same thing people don't think we are "wasting corn" - davidryal, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1and also, this article isn't about corn-based ethanol. dumbass.
- floorman56, on 05/02/2008, -3/+2You do know the corn doesn't "disappear" when you use it for ethanol? look up the term "brewers grain"
- bigmac7669, on 05/02/2008, -4/+6Food prices are rising = less money for gas and housing
Record high gas prices = less money for food and housing
No money to pay morgage = FORECLOSURE
And yet Exxon records record high sales and profit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/business/01cnd-e ...- marx2k, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1You blame a company for being successful? Food prices have not really gone up that much. Gas prices are still lower than most other countries. Relax.
- bigmac7669, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0I'm not blaming a company for being successful, I'm stating facts that make me feel uncomfortable. I don't know about you, but the higher gas prices ARE affecting my family. Why is it that rising oil costs don't affect the middle man?? Yes, gas is more expensive in other countries but I haven't been living in other countries.... I've been living in America
Food prices have gone up alot if you want to read this article:
http://www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/art ...
"Milk prices, for example, increased 26 percent over the year. Egg prices jumped 40 percent."
If you aren't affected at all by these than you are either very wealthy or very poor which is why it sucks to be middle class
- bigmac7669, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0I'm not blaming a company for being successful, I'm stating facts that make me feel uncomfortable. I don't know about you, but the higher gas prices ARE affecting my family. Why is it that rising oil costs don't affect the middle man?? Yes, gas is more expensive in other countries but I haven't been living in other countries.... I've been living in America
- marx2k, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1You blame a company for being successful? Food prices have not really gone up that much. Gas prices are still lower than most other countries. Relax.
- bincoder, on 05/02/2008, -3/+2About time that they found something to fuel cars with besides my beer and pizza.
- 4DFX, on 05/02/2008, -2/+2What? GMs don't drop loot!
- SilasTomorrow, on 05/02/2008, -2/+3Good job, GM. Keep doing good things, and shut the complainers up. Why hate our own companies so much, as to pooh-pooh their efforts? If Honda or Toyota did it, you all would be dumping DNA in your shorts.
- carlosglz, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1If you have seen Who Killed the Electric Car, you will understand why GM and most other automakers want to continue with internal combustion engines. They could care less if it is ethanol, corn or crap burning in the engine, as long as it is an internal combustion engine. You see, electric engines and components last much longer are far less complex to manufacture. GM makes a huge amount of their revenue from replacement parts for internal combustion engines and of course all of the associated parts that eventually break down as well. Also, creating an electric car from scratch does not require as much investment/research/testing as creating an internal combustion engine car ( http://www.teslamotors.com/ ) and it would mean more and more competition for them in the future.
- Kenzan, on 05/02/2008, -2/+2The answer to our engergy ills are simple, but people still aren't getting it.
Biofuel isn't the answer.- ZebZ, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1Enlighten us?
Biofuels may not be the answer, but its the best intermediate-term solution we've got until other technologies mature.
Personally, I'm rooting for algae-based biofuel... about as carbon neutral as we can get as far as these things go.- Kenzan, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2The issue is rather complicated and difficult to encapsulate it in a brief text.
The bottom line is, the chemicals and method of production of these materials and consequentially the dumping of waste products and by-products into the enviornment by the process of creating and the burning of these substances isn't helping the enviornment as it is being sold. You are simply trading one problem for another. The solution is to invest in clean energy technologies, which Biofuel isn't You need to look at the whole picture of beginning to end of the process to assess the overall impact.- chaosium, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2Exactly. It's massively inefficient, and doesn't in the short or long term reduce our dependency on oil, or the pollution created.
- marx2k, on 05/02/2008, -2/+1"The answer to our engergy ills are simple, but people still aren't getting it."
"The issue is rather complicated and difficult to encapsulate it in a brief text. "
Ok.- Kenzan, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2Please read the repsonses again.
These are two different responses to two questions.
One was a comment on energy ills overall, and one was on the the reasons why Biofuels are not viable.
- Kenzan, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2Please read the repsonses again.
- Kenzan, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2The issue is rather complicated and difficult to encapsulate it in a brief text.
- ZebZ, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1Enlighten us?
- SSCrow, on 05/02/2008, -2/+2Why not adopt more cogeneration techniques instead of focusing on just hydrogen, Ethenol, or whatever is the buzz word of the season?
- WheelJak, on 05/02/2008, -0/+12010?!?!?!
I do this right now for a living!
www.Iogen.ca - Landlocked, on 05/03/2008, -0/+0It's funny how presidential candidates are promising new technology that's currently being developed now by the private sector.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by