Chat with retiring GM research VP Larry Burns today at 3pm EDT
Larry Burns has served as General Motors Vice president of research and development for 11 years, a tenure longer than anyone else since the original holder of that office, Charles Kettering. This fall however, Burns will be strolling off into the sunset as he has opted for retirement. Before he exits the building for the last time, he will sit down at the computer for a web chat with the online masses. Burns has been been one of the major advocates at General Motors of taking personal transportation into the future with technologies like electrification, hydrogen fuel cells, communications and more. During previous conversions with AutoblogGreen, Burns has acknowledged that GM made a mistake in ending the EV1 program the way it did instead of keeping the cars on the road. Nonetheless, Burns is a firm believer that hydrogen is the better long term solution than batteries. Regardless of the powertrain other technologies like vehicle-to-vehicle, vehicle-to-infrastructure communications and autonomous vehicles can do much to reduce traffic congestion, fuel consumption and improve safety.
Join in the chat right here on ABG at 3pm EDT today just below the fold.
[Source: General Motors]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Serge 1:16PM (9/16/2009)
Is this going to be another censored chat, where only "approved" questions are shown and answered?
Reply
paulwesterberg 1:34PM (9/16/2009)
Of course, this is part of a well orchestrated media/marketing event. You need to control the medium in order to control the message. Only serious car nerds and wall street investors will tune in anyway, joe six-pack cares not.
Carney 3:24PM (9/16/2009)
Yes, but he can read everything you send him....
Efried 4:05PM (9/16/2009)
Here are the unanswered questions of the chat:
- is production of BEVs being expensive and inferior to ICE a business model?
- what about the 1.4l engine with the "Volt" compared to the 1.0l engine of the Opel Corsa being without the electric attribute?
- would'nt is wiser to resize vehicles first like VW did with the 1l car before introducing alternative fuels?
jpm 1:43PM (9/16/2009)
nice good researching hummers man. now go enjoy your tax dollar retirement money.
Reply
Carney 2:59PM (9/16/2009)
Maddening that he wasted taxpayer, investor, and customer money on the Hydrogen Hoax
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax
instead of simply moving the entire fleet to being fully flex fueled at a measly $130 a car.
Reply
george 10:19PM (9/16/2009)
I'm sorry, but this was SOOO FUNNY, I had to post it twice!!
www.carneyisahoax.com/carneysux/carneypoststhesamelinkspamallthetime.fu
Carney 4:29PM (9/16/2009)
His reference to methanol being "toxic" is a canard. Yes, you shouldn't drink or bathe in it but the same goes for gasoline, which is in the same class of toxicity, and which GM employs no FUD against.
And in fact if you do ingest methanol there's an easy antidote - ethanol, the active ingredient in every alcoholic drink. Ethanol is edible (obviously) and is preferentially absorbed by the body; in effect crowding out the receptors methanol would use. Note that no such antidote exists for gasoline.
Toxicity is all a matter of dosage. In normal use, as with gasoline, one is simply not exposed to harmful levels of methanol. In fact, methanol is what the body converts aspartame, and FDA-approved sweetener, into. It's even naturally present in fresh fruit to such a degree that if an orange were an artificial product it would be banned under our strict regulations.
That's why 14,000 methanol cars were exhaustively tested by the California Energy Commission in the 80s and 90s in daily commutes, with no ill effects on health.
Bottom line, being all hesitant about methanol because of "toxicity" is a reflection of incompetence or mendacity. I hope it's the former, rather than GM locking methanol out of the marketplace at the behest of the corn or oil lobbies.
Reply
Serge 5:14PM (9/16/2009)
News Flash! All GM's cars are fueled by toxic and carcinogenic substance!
Agreed, bringing up methanol's toxicity was just a poor excuse. While we are on methanol topic, my question: "Did GM R&D investigate methanol fuel cells?" never showed up. Is it because there actually does exist a fuel cell that's potentially better than a hydrogen one?
I find it interesting and kind of funny, that hydrogen advocates, Mr. Burns included, have switched their tune to "we are all friends now; we need all the options," while still pulling the blanket for hydrogen. How many questions and answers to "what needs to be done to shove hydrogen infrastructure down taxpayer's throats" can you count above? See any mention of public electric charge infrastructure? You decide ...
Finally, with Frankfurt Motor Show upon us I asked for comments on why so few HFCEV's, but so many plug-in xEVs were exhibited. No answer, of course. Perhaps it didn't quite fit with sanctioned "de Germans are ahead of us" message. Maybe I should vet my questions with these folks http://www.facebook.com/AmericansForAHydrogenEconomy first.
Apparently, I'm really not in tune with the message today.
Doug 7:22PM (9/16/2009)
I also asked a few questions about methanol and they were all ignored.
george 9:18PM (9/16/2009)
Carney,
Methanol is a great fuel, but, I thinks it's obvious that the "incompetent" person here is yourself. LOTS OF PEOPLE HAVE DIED FROM METHANOL!!
Fact: 10ml of methanol can cause permanent blindness and 100 ml can cause death.
Do some research before spreading your B.S. Better yet, why don't you try your "antidote" theory and let us know how it turns out.
here's a link for you
www.carneyisahoax.com/carneysux/carneypoststhesamelinkspamallthetime.fu
Carney 10:42PM (9/16/2009)
George, the second sentence I wrote said that you shouldn't drink methanol. And I'm well aware that botched attempts at brewing moonshine sometimes produced methanol rather than ethanol. Again, drinking gasoline is a bad idea too.
Carney 11:39PM (9/16/2009)
george, a brief Google search would have spared you this inevitable embarrassment:
From
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/573inhibit.html
Methanol poisoning occurs because methanol is oxidized to formaldehyde and formic acid which attack the optic nerve causing blindness. Ethanol is given as an antidote for methanol poisoning because ethanol competitively inhibits the oxidation of methanol. Ethanol is oxidized in preference to methanol and consequently, the oxidation of methanol is slowed down so that the toxic by-products do not have a chance to accumulate.
Also from that well known den of crackpots, the National Institutes of Health:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1306022
Seven patients with methanol poisoning were treated with ethanol, hemodialysis and supportive measures. The interval between ingestion and initiation of ethanol therapy varied from 3 to 67 hours and from ingestion to dialysis from 9 to 93 hours. All patients survived, but one had permanent visual impairment. A 10% ethanol solution administered intravenously is a safe and effective antidote for severe methanol poisoning. Ethanol therapy is recommended when plasma methanol concentrations are higher than 20 mg per dl, when ingested doses are greater than 30 ml and when there is evidence of acidosis or visual abnormalities in cases of suspected methanol poisoning.
---
And now, please go away.
Dave 4:41PM (9/16/2009)
"Here are the unanswered questions of the chat:
- is production of BEVs being expensive and inferior to ICE a business model?
- what about the 1.4l engine with the "Volt" compared to the 1.0l engine of the Opel Corsa being without the electric attribute?
- would'nt is wiser to resize vehicles first like VW did with the 1l car before introducing alternative fuels?"
1. No. Batteries are expensive. GM does not have control of the global supply of batteries, nor over the laws of physics.
2. The 1.4 is smoother and runs at lower RPM for better NVH. In addition, the 1.4 is manufactured in the USA, closer to Volt assembly, saving shipping costs as well as exchange rate issues, which would be unfavorable.
3. GM does not have mind control over consumers and, therefore, must build what consumers want in order to stay in business.
Reply
Randy S 6:18PM (9/16/2009)
Mr. Burns, please get lost! How dispicable that people like you still have a forum like this to continue spreading your H2 BS. The US/Can gov's bail you failures out, then they reinstate your H2 BS funding that Chu tried to yank. The only thing you losers do do well is lobby government for money. If H2 is such a good idea then fund your own start up with your own money.
Reply
Randy S 6:42PM (9/16/2009)
Mr. Burns, you probably do deserver a lot more respect than what I just gave you in my last post and I feel it's a real shame to be talking to you like I did. It's sad.
But it's your own damn fault for continously promoting a failed technology and wasting valuable time and resources.
At least your job at GM is done and you can retire well on all those oil and gas kickbacks.
I know GM thinks they are/were protecting their business interests, but their business could have also been a world leader if they had just taken the bull by the horns 10 years ago and damn the consequences, GM could have been number one today in EV's.
Oh well, should of, could of...
Reply
nrb 6:49PM (9/16/2009)
The hatred is amazing. You guys must be a lot of fun in meetings.
Reply
skierpage 7:57PM (9/16/2009)
The most interesting thing Mr. Burns said (besides "Excellent" with tented fingertips :-) ) was:
"If you have an acre of biomass and you can make hydrogen or electricity or ethanol from this biomass, which will allow you to travel farther? Hydrogen will give you the greatest distance, followed by electricity and then ethanol."
Where's the analysis to support this? If true, hydrogen as a range-extender for a plug-in car may make sense when fossil fuel runs out and possibly before that as CO2 reduction.
"Plug-in electrics and fuel-cell electrics are very complimentary"
Edna Krabappel points out
complimentary: "You look marvelous!
complEmentary: serving to fill out or complete; mutually supplying each other's lack.
Reply
Doug 8:18PM (9/16/2009)
I'd like to see the analysis on that as well. Add to that comparison an acre of solar panels.
Doug 8:15PM (9/16/2009)
This question kinda threw me:
"[Comment From John Michae Parkan ]
Why do you think there is such vigorous resistance by battery folks in accepting the kinds of rapid changes and developments that have been made on the hydrogen front in the last few years and how do you push back against such a well funded, well message attacks? "
Is there a well funded anti-hydrogen lobby? I suppose it's possible. At least on these pages, most of the pro-hydrogen comments seem to come from those with a financial stake in the hydrogen economy.
Reply