Well, so much for scientific research in Antarctica…it’s about to be a war zone.

  • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    4 days ago

    Just for context, the US uses around 7 billion barrels per year. Can keep the SUVs going for the better part of a century.

      • JamesTBagg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        What’s weird is that Gale Banks, one of the godfathers of turbocharging and a huge name in diesel performance, is adamant that rolling coal is stupid. Especially in modern engines with lightening fast fuel control systems… more forgivable in older diesels with mechanical injection systems. But he says it’s money and horsepower literally blowing out your exhaust, being a internal combustion engine enthusiast myself I don’t understand wanting to leave performance blowing away in the wind; that’s YOUR unburnt diesel blowing away! In THIS economy!

        • 0x0@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          No matter the advances, the Otto cycle will always be 25% efficient, at most.

          • JamesTBagg@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Last I heard modern gas engines have reached a smidge over 30% thermal efficiency because the pure Otto cycle hasn’t been used in decades. Mazda(?) recently announced an engine over 40% efficiency using an Atkinson design I think. Superchargers and more Turbochargers boost efficiency more by recycling waste energy.

            But I’m not sure any of that matters because diesels aren’t Otto Cycle.

                • 0x0@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  Such as Wankels, ok, just replace “Otto cycle” with 4-stroke in my original comment.

                  • JamesTBagg@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    3 days ago

                    Then your original comment is still wrong, because diesel engines are significantly more thermally efficient than 25%. Even modern gas engines tend to beat your 25% claim.