From what I understand it mainly has to do with the different ways the EU and the US handle diesel emissions. The Europeans use urea injection to clean up the the emissions where the epa mandates that vehicle emissions control must be passive with a life span of 50k miles iirc.
That and Americans don't seem to embrace diesel technology they still think of diesel powered vehicles as slow, stinky, and smoky.
sadly your right with this whole post, but to me the most important part is bolded. it is proven that Diesel, without and emission restrictions (I.e no catalytic converters), burn cleaner then cars with a catalytic converter.
Volkswagen offers a TDI engine in some of their models...for extra money...which should not be the case when fuel economy comes to mind, but the gas engines help big business oil companies.
back to the OP,I only saw mention of diesel in that article. and if all the company can make is diesel we as the consumer could have an issue.... at $30 a barrel for diesel with this technology that is how much cheaper then for a barrel of diesel now? the taxes on diesel would be enormous, or the tables would shift and the prices on regular 85 octane fuel would be the price of diesel. Granted, that would help the food prices a little, considering the farmers that use the diesel for theyre tractors and the trucks that bring the product of the farms to market use diesel and both the farmer and truck driver would be spending less, therefore, in theory, the food prices go down, but the everyday consumer of regular gas would be spending just as much in the end. no?
The technology is great, dont get me wrong, but it needs to level the ground across the whole field, not just the diesel, to win me over completely.