Canadian Athabasca region tar sands contain more oil than the whole world conventional oil reserves. However, such oil reserves is only 1/10 of original oil deposits; the rest 9/10 were destroyed over the eons by wash-out and microbial degradation. These are the facts. And some interesting things are quite revealing from such facts: 1. Oxidation of 10 times of current known oil reserves did not lead to global climate catastrophe. 2. There is no way such massive local oil reserves were formed from tissue of dead animals or plants. 3. As it is proved by massive oil findings in Western Siberia, off-shore Brazil, Mexican gulf, and Black Sea, most of Earth oil were formed by abiotic synthesis in Earth mantle, not by transform of deposits of dead organics. 4. Current described in the article findings actually prove that high hydrocarbons could be easily formed from CO2 bearing feedstock under high pressure and high temperature of upper Earth mantle. 5. [deleted] [Ed. note: Commenter has been banned due to inappropriate language in comment #5.]

No way. Oil&gas are fossil fuels. Synthesis of oil and methane from simple molecules is impossible.

Ai Win: You do not get it. Wind electricity destabilizes the grid because of unpredictable and extremely fast changes in rate of generation. And the bigger the grid, the bigger unpredictable swings in generation/transmission surges. Overall for half-continental grid it is possible to level-out electricity generation (well, wind blows somewhere, right?) But the bigger the grid, the bigger the chance of devastating surge, let alone nightmare of balancing phase and frequency. BTW, Denmark produces the highest percentage of wind electricity among any country in the world. Not surprisingly, Denmark has the highest electricity price in the world too.

Roger, I am not against FC. In fact, I believe that FC is the long-term winner. Think about direct methanol FC, or hydrazine FC, or any other synthetic liquid fuel FCs. What I am against for is dishonest propaganda of yet technically and economically immature technology. Pour billons into FC research? Absolutely. Same as pour billions into fusion research. Waste billions to promote road trails of prohibitory expensive technology? Absolutely not. California/BC hydrogen highway is prime example of idiotic hyping of still lab-stage technology. BTW, couple of economical facts to think about. The whole energy sector (electricity plus fuel) is only 5% of US economy. US health care industry is bigger than the oil&gas industry of entire world (it is extraction only, integrated oil&gas – including refining and delivery – is still 30% bigger than US health care monstrosity). Talk about who is ruling the world.

Take a look at one year graph of electricity production by wind in Denmark. It is grid’s worst nightmare: http://media.photobucket.com/image/denmark%20wind%20power%20output/Nick_Rouse/Danishwindpower.jpg

If FC are 45& per KW, why anyone in the world builds gas turbine electric generators for 1000& per KW? Or coal boilers for 2000$ per KW? Or nuclear reactors for 5000$ per KW? P.S. SJC, Panasonic bought out Sanyo in December 2008.

Back to the reality of Climate Change: “Canada’s wheat production may fall 18 percent this year as dry, cool conditions in the western Prairies slow crop development and wet weather in Manitoba delays seeding… Cooler temperatures for the past four to six months may curb yields to 33.4 bushels an acre, the lowest initial projection in seven years… Cold weather across the Prairies this spring has had a detrimental effect on planting and early crop development in most growing regions” Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aLrrq268WnQQ

Aym: The problem is that Presidium of Russian Academy of Science never voted support (because most of members are strictly again) to Kyoto Protocol, or approval for IPCC policy. President of Russian Academy of Science put his signature in support of IPCC line and generally AGW movement in a breach of RAS charter, purely because of political pressure from Putin and Medvedev. Time will tell full story of this sham. BTW, for 2009 Arctic sea ice extend is close to 30-year average, and Antarctic sea ice extend is at all-time (same 30 years of satellite monitoring) high.

Felipe: energy of compressing or expanding of gases is roughly pressure multiplied by delta volume (for simplicity say that temperature of gases does not change in compression/expansion). Because exhaust gases have much higher temperature, their volume is much higher, and it is possible to extract part of energy of expanding hot exhaust gases to compress cold intake air to pressure higher than pressure of exhaust gases. For simplicity take gas turbine: compressor (powered by exhaust turbine on same shaft as compressor) compress intake air to pressure higher than it is found in combustion chamber (other vice gas turbine engine would not work). But because volume of exhaust gases is much higher (due to higher temperature) than volume of intake air, it is possible to extract useful power, aside from what it is used to compress intake air.

LPG has about 84 000 BTU per gallon versus 114 000 BTU per gallon of regular gasoline. Price comparison between gasoline and LPG should be corrected for lower calorific value: one gallon of gasoline will drive you as far as 1.35 gallon of LPG.

I beg you pardon, Ai. Russian Academy of Science long-standing position is that AGW is total scam. See, for example, here: “When four years ago, then President Vladimir Putin was weighing his options on the Kyoto Protocol the Russian Academy of Sciences strongly advised him to reject it as having “no scientific foundation.” He ignored the advice and sent the Kyoto pact to Parliament for purely political reasons: Moscow traded its approval of the Kyoto Protocol for the European Union’s support for Russia’s bid to join the World Trade Organisation.” http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/10/stories/2008071055521000.htm There are plenty other sources (mostly, naturally, in Russian).

Felipe, it is BACK pressure in exhaust manifold, which has one open end – exhaust pipe. And on average it is smaller than what impeller is pushing into CLOSED cylinder. It is possible to use high pressure PULSES of exhaust gases to charge EGR, but it is very difficult to control.

Toyota currently pays about 2000 US$ for 1.3 KWh NiMh battery, from which only about one third of energy capacity could be used without compromising battery life. Which puts it over 4.5 grand per useful KWh. NiMh battery optimized for specific energy, not specific power, will cut this price by about 30%, but it is still over 3000$ per useful KWh.

There is a search window at the top left of this page. Print here “DOE” and refresh your memory about DOE R&D spendings.

EGR on gasoline engine is pretty straightforward thing: cooled exhaust gases are sucked into intake manifold at part throttle. On diesel engine it is much trickier. Diesel engines are universally turbocharged, and pressure in intake manifold after turbocharger is higher than in exhaust manifold. Admission of exhaust gases before turbocharger is problematic, because diesel soot and traces of engine oil precipitate on exhaust turbine and cause turbine disbalance. It is very undesirable thing – disbalance on a part which rotates at up to 120 000 RPM. Most modern diesel EGR systems avoid such problem by sucking in purified exhaust gases after diesel particulate filter.

“In the case of GM, the bondholders likely will get 10% of the common stock in the reorganized company for the $27 billion they are owed. The UAW will get $10 billion in taxpayer cash, plus 17.5% of the new company's common stock, $2.5 billion in bonds, and $6.5 billion in new preferred stock, paying a 9% dividend, all for the $20 billion it is owed. (WSJ.com 6/1/09) In the case of Chrysler, the bondholders will get $2 billion in cash for the $6.9 billion they are owed, with no equity. The UAW will get 55% of the new company, for "forgiving" $6 billion in promised retiree health care-really, just unsecured debt that would have been in second place in a proper bankruptcy. (WSJ.com 5/1/09).” It is not the problem that secure debt holders (the debt guaranteed by property of the company) are getting less for their dollar. The problem is that they are getting much less than UAW, which is unsecured debt holder and should get a hike, like equity (shares) holders do. The worse part is that this breach of BK law is facilitated by US government and is ignored by Supreme Court.

Gold Peak was one of the first companies worldwide to license from Ovonics NiMh battery chemistry, and, according to old agreements, was grand-fathered to manufacture any NiMh battery they like. BTW, they still buy chemicals from Ovonics, and their small format NiMh batteries (speaking from personal experience) are arguably the best on the market. ECD/Ovonics/Cobasys is unique company (thanks to Stan Ovshinsky) which is on leading edge in amorphous PV cells, NiMh batteries, phase change memory and computer chips with potential of cognitive artificial intellect, to name a few. It is also the sole known public traded company which survived 50 years operation with only single year of profitable operation. ECD parent patent for basic NiMh chemistry 4623597 from 1986 expired at 2003, and from that date use of any format NiMh battery to power pure BEV is free to anyone, because Ovonics parent US patent 6330925 (expiring in 2014) covers use of NiMh battery in HYBRID gasoline-electric vehicles only.

Damage done to US economy by obliterating established rule of BK law will be long-lasting and painful. Already handful of companies has troubles to refinance their corporate (bond) debt, and there are signs of divestment from companies with unionized workforce. Expect much more BK in near future of far better than Chrysler companies, due to inability to rollover their short-temp corporate bonds. Commercial and industrial real estate will be hit hardest. JC: Do you ever think why Chrysler Canada, GMC, GM in China and South America, etc., were profitable up to autumn of 2009, while Detroit was bleeding money for over decade? What was the difference? Workforce was unionized in these regions, models were about the same, governance too. The main difference is huge fixed legacy costs of Detroit in US, mostly health care and pensions. In Canada, for example, health care is mostly government-financed (except for dental and alike complementary insurance), and pension obligations of companies is required by law to be pay-as-you-go (deductions from every paycheck going directly to independent pension fund out of reach of the company). Now Chrysler and GM have slim chance to start over, when such legacy obligations are mostly unloaded. For Chrysler, IMO, best shot is to become niche market manufacturer. Their Dodge RAM pick-up is good, especially with straight six Cummins diesel, and two-mode hybrid with displacement-on-demand V8. Dodge Charger/Caliber is built on Mercedes E-class platform, and as police chaser and muscle car will have stable pool of buyers. Jeep brand also has loyal buyers. As for small-compact-family fuel sippers – good luck with catching-up with Japanese machine.

Funny thing: among countries importing bulk of their oil there is only one which restricts domestic oil production.

Toyota’s experimental PHEV Prius has beefed-up electric motors, changed gear ratio of such motors, uprated power electronics, and, naturally, battery. PHEV Prius is capable of highway speed and much better acceleration in pure electric mode than basic Prius.

There are at least dozen fuel and air additives which decrease ignition delay of diesel fuel, and aid more complete combustion and less soot, HC, and CO emissions. The best one is ferrocene, quite inexpensive component of rocket fuel. Even simple water injection reduces soot and NOx formation. Hydrogen is one of them. However, maximum reported in literature fuel efficiency gains are in order of 1-2%, no way 10%. Additives physically can not increase rate of combustion of diesel fuel, because this rate is defined by rate of evaporation and mixing with air from droplets of injected diesel.

Citizen: Atomic weight of carbon is 12, hydrogen 1, oxygen 16. Motor diesel typically consists of 86% carbon, 13+% of hydrogen by mass. Combustion: C+O2=CO2, or 12+32=44 2H+O=H2O, or 2+16=18. Plugging in percentage of carbon and hydrogen in diesel fuel, 1 pound of diesel fuel after combustion with 15+ pounds of air produces 44/12*0.86= 3.15 pound of carbon dioxide, and 18/2*0.13= 1.17 pound of water vapor.

Anne: Fuel efficiency measured in L per 100km (or gram per KWh) does go step-in-step with reduction of CO2 emissions. Measured inverted in miles per gallon, or km per liter, produces this discrepancy.

Hummer H3 is built on Ghevy Tahoe platform and is powered by standard GM 6.2l V8 engines. H3 is built on Chevy Colorado platform. It is powered by standard GM Vortex 3700 engine. Both vehicles have nothing in common with legendary HUMVEE, except for some resemblance in sheet metal design. Notably, Hummers have antiquated solid beam rear axle, which severely limits off-road capabilities. Despite being quite popular in some markets (Russia, ME), this vehicles are simply outdated GM SUVs dressed in macho image. I doubt long-term popularity of this junk.

Sorry to interrupt your party, but this widely propagated conspiracy theory is complete BS. For starters, series of mentioned patents cover application of NiMH battery TO HYBRID VEHICLES ONLY. Where it is widely used, including large formate batteries on hybrid buses. You can consult parent US patent 6,330,925 issued to Stan Ovshinsky (Ovonics) at 1997. Application of any battery to propel pure battery electric vehicle is not patentable, because it was routinely done for more than two centuries. NiMH battery is extremely poor choice for BEV because: Low energy density (only 70Wh/kg); Poor deep discharge ability: NiMH batteries are limited in hybrid vehicles to about 1/3 of full capacity to prolong battery life (which makes useful energy density of about 20 Wh/kg); Very high rate of self-discharge at elevated temperature; Low cycling efficiency of about 70%; it means that you will have to put at least 2 KWh of electricity to get 1 KWh from battery to propulsion motor.