Russian Attack on Dniester Hydroelectric Power Plant Leaks “Technical Oils” into the Dniester River, Threatening Drinking Water Quality

     Bombing emits pollution, usually air pollution, with the large amounts of smoke from the combustion of the weapons' propulsion systems, as well as the smoke, debris, and particulate pollution emitted from the explosions. The illnesses from the 911 attack cleanup are a clear example that such emissions can be very dangerous, both immediately and over time. The recent bombing of an oil storage facility in Iran by Israeli jets made a residual oily rain that coated the area. This is no doubt harmful. Other types of bombings can release contaminants into waterways, which is what happened recently when Russia bombed a hydroelectric plant in Ukraine on the Dniester River.

     A Russian attack on the Dniester Hydroelectric Power Plant caused oil products to be spilled into the river, creating an environmental threat to the adjacent country of Moldova. They deployed the army and water testing experts and appealed to the European Union for assistance. “Technical oils” were leaked into the river. Teams from Moldova, Romania, and Ukraine, as well as units of the Moldovan National Army, were dispatched to contain oil slicks and to perform water testing. Technical oils used at hydroelectric plants may include lubricants, gear oils, greases, hydraulic oils, and other special lubricants. 

     I recently wrote a post about sabotage that resulted in a leak of approximately 4,900 gallons of non-PBC transformer oil into a creek in West Virginia, and the extensive containment, water testing, and water system purging required to mitigate the incident. Something similar will be required here. 

     According to RBC Ukraine, the Moldovan Prime Minister noted:

"We are requesting support from our European partners for the swift mobilization of specialist teams and the necessary equipment to operate on the Dniester. This includes equipment for capturing, containing, and removing oil pollution from the water, as well as mobile stations for water quality testing," he said.

“Environment Minister Gheorghe Hajder warned that settlements in northern Moldova could be left without a water supply. A yellow-level alert has already been declared in the area of Naslavcea village.”

     They also noted that the Dniester River is a major source of drinking water for two major cities:

“The Dniester River is one of the key sources of water supply for the cities of Odesa (Ukraine) and Chisinau (Republic of Moldova), and the contamination poses a serious threat to the population and aquatic ecosystems.”

     The bombing of civilian energy sites, such as the hydroelectric plant on the Dniester, is a clear violation of the Geneva Convention. Russia excels in committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. While the U.S. leadership has complained about so-called “rules of engagement,” for the most part, it follows them.

     According to Wikipedia:

“The Dnister HES (Ukrainian: Дністровська ГЕС, romanized: Dnistrovska HES) is a 702 MW hydroelectric power station at the Dnister near Novodnistrovsk, Ukraine. It was launched in commercial operation in 1981. Both Dnister Hydroelectric Station and Dniester Pumped Storage Power Station are operated by Ukrhydroenergo and compose the Dnister.” Cascade of power stations. Dnister HES-2 is located downstream and has a 40.8 MW capacity.”

     A Microsoft CoPilot AI summary notes:

“The Dniester Hydroelectric Plant plays a crucial role in Ukraine's energy infrastructure, contributing significantly to the national grid. Its operational history, capacity, and recent developments highlight its importance and the challenges it faces in the current geopolitical climate.”  

References:

 

Russia poisons river in two countries: Ukraine prepares appeal to UN. Kateryna Shkarlat. RBC Ukraine. March 13, 2026. Russia poisons river in two countries: Ukraine prepares appeal to UN

Dniester Hydroelectric Station. Wikipedia. Dniester Hydroelectric Station - Wikipedia

 

 

The EU is Right; Trump Should Not Have Waived Russian Oil Sanctions: They Are Bearing the Brunt of Iran War-Induced High Oil & Gas Prices and Still Oppose Appeasing Putin

  

 

    While I agree that the Iranian regime is horrible, its people deserve better, and we need to do something, the war is still quite risky. That risk is higher for people and countries in the region and for those more directly affected by the closing of the Strait of Hormuz and the drone targeting of commercial ships. China was proactive in stocking up on oil and refined products before the war began. Both Trump and the Iranian regime are hoping that Iranian oil sales to China can continue, although that could change if there is a battle for Kharg Island that ends with the bombing of oil facilities, which have so far been spared.

     Europe imports oil and LNG from the Persian Gulf region and is affected by the change in availability. Germany, France, Norway, and the UK have expressed dismay about Trump’s unilateral move to temporarily ease sanctions on Russian oil to ease the energy crisis.

Merz said: “We believe it is wrong to ease the sanctions. Unfortunately, Russia continues to show no willingness to negotiate. We will therefore, and must, further increase the pressure on Moscow.”

     Russia is actually aiding the Iranian regime with intelligence and working against the U.S. in that respect. Putin is perhaps glad that he is being useful for the world economy, but he is likely gladder to be adding a few billion or perhaps a few tens of billions to Russian war coffers by selling more oil and at a higher price. Now, there can be a few more months of meat-grinder assaults to gain a few meters of war-torn ground.

The US was “effectively acknowledging the obvious: without Russian oil, the global energy market cannot remain stable”, Russia’s economic envoy, Kirill Dmitriev, wrote on Telegram.

     That is not really true, but with supplies constrained, it should help to lower prices a bit. It is ironic and probably highly annoying to Ukraine that the U.S. would accept Russia’s help in alleviating oil prices but decline Ukraine’s offer to help with defense against Shahed drones, as I just read. Other countries in the region have sought Ukraine’s help in this regard. It was only a month previously that Trump had said India agreed not to buy Russian oil, and he stated that this would end the Ukraine war. The reprieve is only for 30 days, but it will be enough for Russia to reload a bit. Zelensky predicts it will add about $10 billion to Russian war coffers.

     The International Energy Agency’s plan to release 400 million barrels of oil from reserves, including 172 barrels from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), should also help to ease global oil prices. The Waiver on Russian sales to India involves about 120-130 million barrels of oil that is currently at sea on ghost fleet tankers. Ghost fleet tankers continue to be interdicted and seized in European waters. Only a trickle of the previously estimated 20 million barrels per day is getting through the Strait at present.

"Six members of the G7 expressed a very clear opinion that this was not the right signal. We then learned this morning that the American government has apparently decided otherwise," ​Merz told a press conference in Norway.

"Again, we believe this is wrong. There is currently a price problem but not a quantity problem. And therefore, I would like to know ​what other motives led the American government to make this decision," he said.

     According to data analytics firm Vortexa, around 7.3 million barrels of Russia-originated oil are in floating storage, while 148.6 million barrels are in vessels in transit.

     Up to 420,000 metric tons of diesel and gasoil are currently in floating storage and could be available for sale in the market, according to LSEG ship-tracking data and trade sources.

     The Russian waiver applies to oil loaded on vessels at sea and is set to expire on April 11.

     The U.S. downplayed the importance of waiving the sanctioned Russian oil:

In a social media post, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said, "this narrowly tailored, short-term measure applies only to oil already in transit and will not provide significant financial benefit to the Russian government, which derives the majority of its energy revenue from taxes assessed at the point of extraction."

        It was pointed out that the gains of the past year in pressuring Russia’s oil sales will be lost by the waiving of sanctions for even a month. This is due to the higher prices on the market now – about $30 higher than before the war began, adding about $150 million per day. Both Democrats and some Republicans in the U.S. Congress criticized the decisions to allow India to buy sanctioned Russian oil. Others fear the reprieve will be extended.

 

References:

 

US temporarily lifts sanctions on Russian oil transported by tankers. Ivan Diakonov. Ukrainska Pravda. March 12, 2026. US temporarily lifts sanctions on Russian oil transported by tankers

European allies riled as US loosens Russia oil sanctions. John Irish, Andreas Rinke and Dmitry Antonov. Reuters. March 13, 2026. European allies riled as US loosens Russia oil sanctions | Reuters

Europe rebukes US for temporarily lifting sanctions on Russian oil: German chancellor says decision is wrong and that pressure on Putin over Ukraine war should be increased. Peter Beaumont, Callum Jones, and Kate Connolly. The Guardian. March 13, 2026. Europe rebukes US for temporarily lifting sanctions on Russian oil | US-Israel war on Iran | The Guardian 

Think Russian oil will calm the Iran conflict’s supply panic? Here’s what the math reveals. Myra P. Saefong. Market Watch. March 13, 2026. Think Russian oil will calm the Iran conflict’s supply panic? Here’s what the math reveals.

The plan behind Russian oil sanctions and why a reversal faces backlash. Keaton Peters. Straight arrow News. March 13, 2026. The plan behind Russian oil sanctions and why a reversal faces backlash

Rosebank Oil Field and Jackdaw Gas Field in the UK North Sea Should Be Producing Oil and Gas: Economic and Energy Security Benefits Should Outweigh Emissions Concerns

      Concerns about emissions and climate have led to governments essentially ‘shooting themselves in the foot’ by avoiding the development of their domestic resources. In many cases, the result of such policies has included higher energy and electricity costs, de-industrialization and loss of competitiveness, and even inadvertently increased emissions. Resources close to home and within the country are generally cheaper to develop and transport. They generate other economic benefits, including jobs, tax revenue, and cheaper feedstocks for industry. They also offer energy security and can help absorb shocks to the global energy system. A case in point is the UK’s refusal to open up drilling and production at an oil field and a gas field in the Shetland Island region of the North Sea. The fields are already discovered, assessed, and ready to be developed.

     The UK’s Energy Secretary Ed Miliband is in the hot seat now for keeping a drilling ban in place in the North Sea as well as the so-called windfall tax, which makes taxation excessive for oil & gas companies. With the war in Iran and the Middle East, there is reason to argue that this ban and the high taxes, which resulted from high oil and gas prices during the early parts of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, are not needed and counterproductive to supplying the region with affordable oil & gas. I recall reading that Trump urged Starmer to open drilling back up in the UK North Sea. Obviously, Europe is short of oil & gas supply, and not developing its own ready-to-develop resources is not smart. It is a no-brainer.

     The Chairman of Ineos, industrial magnate Sir Jim Ratcliffe, urged Miliband to approve the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields so they can be further developed. The CEO noted:

“Without reliable energy in a conflict situation, running hospitals, transportation, manufacturing and basic essentials like heating and lighting are jeopardised.”

“Our strategic defence capability is totally undermined just when we need it most. Without a reliable supply of energy, the country is crippled.”

     Sir Jim stated the obvious when he said Britain should produce its own oil & gas rather than import it, even if only for energy security reasons.

     According to The Telegraph:

“Offshore Energies UK, the trade body for the UK oil and gas industry, has stepped up its campaign to replace the windfall tax. It says the 78pc flat rate total tax imposed on UK oil and gas profits is driving companies away and destroying 1,000 jobs a month.”

“Sir Jim also called for more investment in the UK’s gas storage capacity, a cause long advocated by British Gas-owner Centrica. The Telegraph revealed last week that Britain had as little as two days of gas stored.”

     The Rosebank field is the largest undeveloped oil and gas field in British waters. It is estimated to contain around 300 million barrels of oil. Jackdaw, 150 miles east of Aberdeen, is a gas field that alone could make up 6-7% of the UK’s natural gas production. However, the UK still imports most of its natural gas. The Rosebank Field has begun development, and the Jackdaw Field is already partially drilled. Norwegian State Oil Company Equinor was granted permission to drill by a previous Conservative government, but that decision was overturned by a Scottish court in January based on a claim that the carbon emissions of the projects were not accounted for correctly. Equinor resubmitted an application to produce oil and gas at Rosebank last October. Rosebank and Jackdaw are already licensed fields, but they need the consent of the Energy Secretary.

     Existing fields in the UK North Sea are in decline and could be producing less than half of what they are now by 2030. Choosing to import rather than produce degrades energy security and makes the country vulnerable to geopolitically induced supply shocks, as is now occurring. Sir Jim also emphasized that Norway has been drilling and developing more fields and supplies in its part of the North Sea, while the UK has banned drilling and enacted excessive, unnecessary taxes on the industry.

     Sir Jim went on to quip:

“Unsurprisingly, investment is fleeing. If Britain is serious about energy security and jobs, the windfall tax must be scrapped and replaced with a stable, price-triggered system that encourages companies to invest here rather than somewhere else.”

“Net zero ambitions are good goals but should sit firmly in second place. The UK should maximise energy extraction from the North Sea alongside nuclear new builds and additional wind turbines. These are not mutually exclusive as the US has shown. We must not let ideology obscure common sense and jeopardise national security.”

“Energy security must come before rigid net zero targets and the same applies to the rest of Europe.”

     Make UK, the manufacturers’ lobby group, is also working to get Miliband to change policy. They note that the issue of de-industrialization is already in full swing, and the current policies threaten to accelerate that de-industrialization.

     Environmentalist detractors pointed out that some of the oil produced might be exported, and the gas production is not enough to matter much since most gas consumed in the UK is imported.

“Tessa Khan, the executive director at Uplift, said: “If the conflict in Iran and soaring oil prices isn’t enough to remind us of the financial pain from remaining hooked on fossil fuels, Rosebank is a rotten deal for the UK. The rig was made in Dubai, not Scotland. The oil belongs in part to the Norwegians, who will take most of the profits.”

“It will do nothing to lower energy bills – it is predominantly oil for export – and the tiny amount of gas it contains is enough to reduce the UK’s import dependency by just 1pc. It is oil for profit, at our expense.”

     Miliband should act to open these fields without further delay. They should work out the carbon emissions later. It should also be noted that Equinor has among the highest environmental and emissions standards anywhere in the oil and gas world. 

 

References:

 

Miliband urged to open Britain’s biggest oil field to avoid energy crisis. Eir Nolsoe and Jonathan Leake. The Telegraph. March 13, 2026. Miliband urged to open Britain’s biggest oil field to avoid energy crisis

Iran war is a wake-up call for Miliband, says Ratcliffe: Ineos boss urges Energy Secretary to reverse his decision to block North Sea gas development. Jonathan Leake and Tim Wallace. The Telegraph. March 12, 2026. Iran war is a wake-up call for Ed Miliband, says Sir Jim Ratcliffe

Nevada Governor Says California’s Emissions Regulations Affect Regional Fuel Availability and Cost

     Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo recently stated that California’s proposed climate program has the potential to disrupt fuel supplies across the region, including in his state. Nevada buys refined oil from California and is thus compelled to pay higher prices due to California’s air quality regulations, which exceed those of other states. In a letter to Governor Gavin Newsom, Lombardo wrote:

"I write to you now to express concerns regarding the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) draft Cap-and-Invest regulation and raise awareness around the significant implications it may have for fuel supply stability across the Western United States, particularly for Nevada."

     He noted that Nevada was structurally dependent on California’s refineries for gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, and there was not a scalable alternative source available.  

"As a result, policy decisions that materially affect refinery operations in your state directly and immediately impact fuel availability, pricing, and economic stability in Nevada," he wrote.

     He also noted that even before the rule, several important refineries in California had shut down, seemingly for good, due to regulatory pressures. The result is likely to be very high fuel prices for Californians, Nevadans, and those living in other states dependent on California’s refineries for supply. Other possibilities include marine imports.

"Increased reliance on marine imports would expose our state and residents to international supply disruptions, port congestion, weather events, and geopolitical instability."

     This week’s gasoline prices were $5.336 a gallon in California, compared with $4.363 in Nevada and a national average of $3.578.

He urged Newsom's administration to "carefully evaluate the regional consequences of the draft Cap-and-Invest regulation before final adoption."

"My request is straightforward: any major policy change that could alter refinery economics in California must account for the real-world consequences to neighboring states that depend on that infrastructure," Lombardo wrote.

"Fuel affordability and availability are foundational to economic stability, interstate commerce, and national security across the Southwest. Given additional tension in the Middle East, the situation is particularly pressing," he added.

     This shows without a shadow of a doubt that climate policies hurt affordability for Americans. The California Air Resources Board (CARB), which proposed the regulations, does have some justification in terms of providing slightly better air quality for Californians. However, fuel supply stability may increase for them as well as those in nearby states.

 

      

References:

 

Nevada Gov.: Calif. emissions plan risks regional fuel supply. Theodore Bunker. Newsmax. March 11, 2026. Nevada Gov.: Calif. emissions plan risks regional fuel supply

Light and Heavy REEs: Value of Rare Earth Ores Depends on Total REEs, the Mix, and Concentrations: Graphic from Alba Mineral Resources

      I caught a LinkedIn post from Mineral Alba Resources that describes how the value of rare earth deposits depends on the composition of the ore, whether the ore is made up of mainly light REEs or mainly heavy REEs, the mix, and the concentration of each.

     According to Alba Mineral Resources:

“Light rare earth elements (LREEs) and heavy rare earth elements (HREEs) differ in how they occur in nature, how they concentrate into different minerals, and what they are used for. Minerals such as bastnäsite and monazite are typically LREE rich (for example cerium, lanthanum, neodymium, praseodymium), while xenotime and related phases can concentrate HREEs such as dysprosium, terbium and yttrium.”

“This matters because a deposit’s potential value, processing route, and end use relevance depend heavily on its LREE vs HREE profile. It is not just about total REE. It is about which end of the spectrum dominates, because that influences everything from mineralogy and metallurgy to market applications.”

     LREE ores include Bastnasite and Monazite. HREE ores include Xenotime. Below, they explain some important uses of LREEs and HREEs and why LREE vs. HREE distributions can be used to help understand the geology of emplacement as well as later changes that may have affected concentrations.

“A simple example: neodymium (LREE) is a key ingredient in permanent magnets used in EV motors and wind turbines, while dysprosium (HREE) helps those magnets keep performance at higher temperatures. So the proportion and distribution of LREEs vs HREEs can change the story of a project.”

“From an exploration perspective, this split is also a geological clue. Variations in LREE and HREE distribution can help the team interpret how the system formed and whether later stage fluids may have modified or enriched certain zones. In short, the light vs heavy distinction is a core part of responsible rare earth exploration, because it keeps interpretation grounded in mineralogy, process, and context.”

     The first graphic below is from Alba Mineral Resources, and the second one of the periodic table is from Geology.com.

    

References:

 

Light vs. Heavy Rare Earth. Why It matters. Alba Mineral Resources PLC. (24) Alba Mineral Resources PLC: Posts | LinkedIn

REE - Rare Earth Elements and their Uses: The demand for rare earth elements has grown rapidly, but their occurrence in minable deposits is limited. Hobart M. King, PhD. Geology.com. REE - Rare Earth Elements - Metals, Minerals, Mining, Uses

New Study Claims Some Plug-In Hybrids Use More Fuel Than Claimed: Cheaper PHEVs Used Less Fuel Than More Expensive Ones

   

     German research organization, the Fraunhofer Institute, recently put out a report that claims that some plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) use more fuel than they claim to use. The study utilized data from about 1 million PHEVs from 2021 to 2023.

     According to an article in This is Money

“Fraunhofer Institute found real-world fuel consumption is 5.9 litres/100km - or 48mpg - which is around 300 per cent above the type-approval consumption.”

“In fact, PHEVs show fuel consumption on the road equivalent to conventional internal combustion cars.”

“Vehicle makers had claimed that plug-in hybrids use hardly any fuel when in electric mode, but the study has shown that this might not be the case.”

     Having owned a PHEV for approximately one year in 2019/2020, I can say quite definitively that the study does not reflect my experience at all. That, however, does not dispute the study, which shows that different PHEVs can have vastly different fuel economy and subsequent fuel consumption.

     A previous analysis by the UK’s Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), an electric vehicle-backing research organization, as reported by This is Money, suggested that PHEV owners were paying twice as much to fuel their vehicles with gasoline and electricity as they were led to believe. The study also noted that PHEV sales have skyrocketed in the UK, increasing by 34% and outpacing new diesel vehicles by more than double. See the second graph below. The study claims that PHEV owners typically don't charge their cars regularly enough to make the most of the electric benefits. However, I can clearly say that was not the case with me.

     The new study by Fraunhofer Institute concludes that higher-than-stated fuel usage is due to PHEVs switching between modes - the electric motors and the combustion engine. The study suggests that the gasoline engine engages more in “discharge mode” than previously believed.

“It turns out that many cheaper PHEVs from brands like Kia, Toyota, Ford and Renault have the lowest fuel consumption.”

“These plug-in hybrids typically used under one litre per 100km - the equivalent to a staggering 282mpg.”

“On the other hand, Porsche hybrids consume far more fuel - around seven litres per 100km (roughly 40mpg).”

     I had a Kia and calculated my avg mpg somewhere around 75mpg due to the PHEV range of 26 miles and my typical commute, which was about 45-55 miles round-trip. With a shorter commute or a bigger range, I could increase that to about 120mpg. I was lucky enough to have a Level 2 charger installed at home. Others may be compelled to charge at public charging stations, which have higher costs. It may also be inconvenient to charge them at the right times, which may hinder keeping them charged optimally.

     The findings from the report have echoed calls for reforms in the EU and UK, including that PHEV users should be shown the proportion of electric driving transparently on the display ('display transparency') or be forced to charge at least every 500km (311 miles) to reduce their emissions impact. Another policy goal is to get lab-based emissions testing results to better match real-world driving conditions. Of course, if PHEV owners are not charging their vehicles enough due to inconvenience or whatever, then that is their own problem and should not be reflected in policy.

 

  

 

References:

 

New study claims plug-in hybrid cars guzzle three times more fuel than advertised. Freda Lewis-Stempel. This Is Money. February 19, 2026. New study claims plug-in hybrid cars guzzle three times more fuel than advertised

Plug-in hybrid cars dubbed a 'scandal' by think tank due to fuel bills double what drivers are told. Rob Hull. This is Money. January 26, 2026. Plug-in hybrid cars dubbed a 'scandal' by think tank due to fuel bills double what drivers are told | This is Money

Geoengineering Via Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement by Adding Sodium Hydroxide: Experiment Offshore Maine Began in August 2025

     In August 2025, 65,000 liters (about 17,171 gallons) of sodium hydroxide tagged with a red dye were released into the Gulf of Maine in a geoengineering experiment. The goal of this Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement (OAE) experiment is to raise the local ocean pH to counteract growing acidity. The sodium hydroxide was added over a four-day period off the coast of Boston. A secondary effect of the sodium hydroxide release is to increase ocean uptake of CO2.

     An article in the Daily Mail explains the experiment:

“The LOC–NESS (Locking Ocean Carbon in the Northeast Shelf and Slope) project is the first large–scale experiment to test the impact of OAE in an open water setting.”

“With approval from the US Environmental Protection Agency and engagement with local fishers, scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution poured alkaline chemicals into the ocean 50 miles (80 km) off the Massachusetts coast.”

“They then used cutting–edge technology, including autonomous gliders, long–range autonomous underwater vehicles and shipboard sensors to track the spreading chemicals.”

“Over the next few days, the scientists measured 10 tonnes of carbon entering the water as the pH increased from 7.95 to 8.3 – matching pre–industrial levels.”

     Over the next year, the sodium hydroxide released could lead to an uptake of as much as 50 tons of CO2 in the best-case scenario.

     The researchers note that this experiment involves tracking the results of the sodium hydroxide release and setting the stage for future experiments, as well as developing a basis for engineering, tracking, and monitoring experimental results. In this experiment, it was found that sodium hydroxide had no negative impacts on plankton, fish, and lobster larvae. However, the effects on adult fish were not assessed. Knowing these effects is important since this oceanic region is known for its fishing industry.

“Rachel Davitt, a PhD student from Rutgers University who helped lead the ecological assessment, says: 'Based on the biological and ecological impact data that we have collected and analysed so far, there was no significant impact of the LOC–NESS field trial on the biological community using the metrics we measured.”

     Critics say the biggest unknown of the experiment is the effects on marine wildlife. They also say that OAE does not address the root of the problem, which is the amount of CO2 being emitted to the atmosphere, describing it as a short-term fix.

     According to Gareth Cunningham, Director of Conservation and Policy at the Marine Conservation Society:

“Restoring natural habitats like seagrass and shellfish reefs offers a more sustainable solution by helping buffer acidification while improving water quality, protecting coastlines and supporting marine life – which is exactly what we're doing through our Atlantic Coast Programme here in the UK.”

     A few of the concerns about excessive ocean alkalinity enhancement include effects on species growth, metabolism, and biodiversity, and the release of trace metals.

     Below are common methods and proposals for geoengineering, their effects, and drawbacks.

 

  

  

References:

 

Controversial geoengineering project sees scientists pump 65,000 litres of chemicals into the ocean to stop global warming. Wiliam Hunter. Daily Mail. March 10, 2026. Controversial geoengineering project sees scientists pump 65,000 litres of chemicals into the ocean to stop global warming | Daily Mail Online

Chinese Company Hunan Tyen Unveils Its Power Turbine Generator: A Compact, Removable Module That Increases EV Range

      Chinese auto company Hunan Tyen, a subsidiary of Changan, has developed a detachable Power Turbine Generator (PTG), which can address range anxiety for EV owners. EV range is affected by cold weather, high-speed energy consumption, and charging convenience. The  PTG  was designed as a modular auxiliary power system, a fuel-to-electricity method of supplementing available energy.

     According to Car News China:

“Hunan Tyen’s PTG system boasts several advantages, including a more compact structure, higher power density, and stronger fuel adaptability. For the key gas turbine component, the company leveraged its fluid machinery design expertise alongside three-dimensional turbulence numerical simulation to analyse the internal flow fields of the compressor and turbine. Simultaneously, they innovatively developed a high-efficiency ball bearing system, an efficient vaned compressor, and a fixed-guide vane turbine, ultimately boosting turbine efficiency by over 5%.”

“The electronic control unit, serving as the control core of the system, faces thermal load challenges under high power density operation. To achieve coordination with the vehicle system, high-efficiency cooling channel structures were designed, combined with precision thermal management strategies based on thermal flow field simulation, solving stability issues under high-temperature conditions.”

     The detachable and drop-in device can turn a battery electric vehicle (BEV) into an extended-range electric vehicle (EREV). Previously, some Tesla owners had fitted range extenders on their vehicles, but the new PTG is a better design, which focuses on efficiency, compactness, and adaptability.

     The PTG features a fixed-guide vaned turbine, an efficient vaned compressor, and a refined bearing assembly. It is also equipped with thermal management, mainly for cooling. It also features a more compact structure, higher power density, and stronger fuel adaptability.

     While the PTG is made for long EV trips requiring extended range, it can also be used in other applications, such as unmanned aerial systems and portable power supply equipment. It can also reduce reliance on very large, very heavy, and very expensive battery packs.

     According to Interesting Engineering:

“Because it operates independently of the main electric powertrain and can be used selectively, it could appeal to drivers who face significant range anxiety or limited charging networks, especially in regions where fast-charging infrastructure is still developing.”

     Hunan Tyen optimized turbine airflow using 3D turbulence simulations, resulting in the 5% performance improvement. The PTG can be “bolted on” for long trips and removed when not needed. Of course, one day, when EV batteries become more efficient and natural range climbs higher, such detachable range extenders likely won’t be needed. However, at present, they can be very useful.

References:

 

Changan Auto subsidiary unveils detachable power turbine generator to transform BEVs into EREVs. CarNewsChina.com. February 27, 2026. Changan Auto subsidiary unveils detachable power turbine generator to transform BEVs into EREVs

China’s detachable power generator for pure electric cars could end EV range anxiety. Prabhat Ranjan Mishra. Interesting Engineering. February 27, 2026. China’s detachable power generator for pure electric cars could end EV range anxiety

Pielke Jr: Science Under Siege’ by Mann and Hotez Demonizes Detractors as Anti-Science

   A new book by Michael Mann and Peter Hotz, Science Under Siege: How to Fight the Five Most Powerful Forces That Threaten Our World, was recently reviewed by climate impact scientist Roger Pielke Jr. As his title – The Scientists Who Declared War on America – suggests, Pielke Jr. interprets the book as a call to arms by activist scientists. I have argued previously that Michael Mann focuses heavily on demonizing fossil fuel interests. I have read one of his books and a few of his scientific articles. I once heard him speak. I was expecting science, but got politics. Apparently, they mention hundreds of people they disagree with in the book, including Pielke Jr. and Dr. Judith Curry, who I also heard speak, and found her more interested in science than politics. Pielke Jr. suggests that they basically demonize those they don’t like. He says that when people of the future look back at the past politicization of science, they will refer to this book. He also notes that:

“The central argument of the book is apocalyptic.

“The future of humankind and the health of our planet now depend on surmounting the dark forces of antiscience” (p. 3)

“Unless we find a way to overcome antiscience, humankind will face its gravest threat yet – the collapse of civilization as we know it.” (p. 27)

     Mann and Hotez, a virologist, mainly attack Republicans in the book, he says. They also attack some Democrats and centrists who do not share their beliefs. They apparently see themselves as battling the forces of anti-science and evoke Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings for analogies. They feel that the Republican Party is threatening civilization. Below is an example graphic that Pielke Jr. shows from the book about the ‘ecosystem of anti-science.’ As can be seen, they classify the “enemy” into five types, the five Ps: Plutocrats, Petrostates, Pros, Propagandists, and Press. I don’t see that classification as particularly useful or accurate.

     He notes that they seem to especially vilify a few specific fellow climate activists like James Hansen and David Wallace-Wells. I found that odd, but apparently, they have some strong disagreements.

     Pielke Jr. writes:

“Apart from a self-inflated sense of their own role in their imagined global war for the future of humanity, Mann and Hotez do offer a few real-world policy recommendations: Specifically, eliminating the filibuster in the U.S. Senate and expanding the U.S. Supreme Court from nine to 13, but only after Democrats have won the presidency and the House and Senate.”

“Ultimately, Mann and Hotez are calling for the scientific community to join their war and to organize itself in opposition to Republicans, to become even more partisan.”

“What is notable is the degree to which Mann and Hotez have come to represent and speak for the broader scientific community. From this perspective, they are simply a symptom—an extreme one, no doubt—of a broader trend of intense politicization within the scientific community, and particularly the leadership of authoritative scientific institutions.”

     Pielke Jr. sees the book and its authors as leaders of partisan politicization of science. He notes the biases of scientific journals like Science and Nature and groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, all three of which were selected to review the book. I will only reiterate that reading and listening to Mann, I am always startled at his degree of partisanship – Pielke Jr. refers to the authors' views as “dark partisanship.”

     He finishes with the following:

“Future historians seeking to understand how science became so hyper-partisan in the early twenty-first century will certainly want to explore the broader atmosphere of polarization that has enveloped American culture. But they will also want to explore how the scientific community went along with the politicization, not just willingly, but enthusiastically.”

“An important part of that story is the scientific community’s warm embrace and promotion of the book’s divisive message: that scientists are in an existential war against their fellow citizens, a war that can only be won by vanquishing the enemy.”

    

   

 

References:

 

The Scientists Who Declared War on Half of America: Michael Mann and Peter Hotez call scientists into a partisan fight. Roger Pielke Jr. The Honest Broker. March 9, 2026. The Scientists Who Declared War on Half of America