News, GM hopes to push ethanol under $1 (vehicles, auto, fuel)

[JD59]

DETROIT — Ford and Dodge rolled out redesigned versions of their most-important — and most-profitable — vehicles, the F-150 and Ram light pickups, while General Motors' top executive made a pitch for cheaper ethanol at the North American International Auto Show on Sunday.

GM Chairman and Chief Executive Rick Wagoner said that the automaker had entered into a partnership with a startup company called Coskata Inc., which hopes to use a new process that will allow it to make ethanol fuel for under $1 a gallon.

GM hopes to push ethanol under $1 - Nashville, Tennessee - Monday, 01/14/08 - Tennessean.com

[marmac]

sure wasn't any specifics in that link about how the goal of cheaper ethanol would be achieved.

I hope they can produce ethanol for under $1 but I am doubting it.

[Drover]

I'll believe it when I see it...

[yo vanilla]

they can do it, with enough tax dollar gifts of course.

not that they should.

[Drover]

Ah, and here's where a careful examination of language comes in to play. Let's look carefully what the article actually says: "GM Chairman and Chief Executive Rick Wagoner said that the automaker had entered into a partnership with a startup company called Coskata Inc., which hopes to use a new process that will allow it to make ethanol fuel for under $1 a gallon."

So they're not going to "make" the final price for ethanol fall below $1 a gallon. What the article actually says is that they want to make, as in to manufacture, ethanol for under $1 a gallon. Again, we'll see if they actually can... but once they do, how much will it cost to then market and distribute it? Does that $1 a gallon include all overhead such as materials, payroll, land use costs, legal costs, infrastructure, et cetera, or are they just measuring the cost of the energy inputs alone? What would be the actual cost to the consumer? Who knows, but I can tell you this: it won't be anywhere close to $1 a gallon.

Also, you can do all the hoping you want, but it only matters if you can actually do it. And this article gives a hint as to just how far along they are: "'We must find a better way to make ethanol,' Wagoner said, adding that extensive use of the bio-fuel could cut American dependence on imported oil by more than a third." Translation: "We're not aware of any actual technological breakthrough that will make this possible. We're just throwing out rainbow-and-unicorn wishes to make it sound like we care and stuff." So this blurb is worthless for any other purpose than GM simply blowing smoke up peoples' arses.

[sunsprit]

What the new players in the ethanol marketplace are hoping to achieve is the perfection of alternative biomass sources to corn for ethanol production.

There is some "talk" in the business of using algae, with a theoretical biomass ethanol product of many thousands of gallons per cultivated acre compared to the double digits of corn. There are also some other non-food value grasses which can be productively grown on otherwise poor quality rangeland instead of food grade crops soils, and with minimal water use.

These are still far out technologies, but at least the folks in the business are researching alternative energy sources. GM's funding may help achieve results. Even if they do manage to produce a product at the pump costing them only $1.00, don't expect that it will be retailed for anywhere close to that figure. It's all about marketplace value of the energy .... and if you're used to paying $x for a gallon of gasoline (with a certain BTU value), then rest assured that "they" will be selling their ethanol product for not much less.

[yo vanilla]

on a side note, there's been some chatter lately about the increase in the size of the dead zone in the gulf of mexico due to the increase in corn production (for ethanol use)