I’m a huge history buff, and I’ve always been fascinated military strategies and their far-reaching consequences. Take World War II for example. One of the main reasons the Allies were able to triumph over Nazi Germany was their prolonged and relentless bombing campaign on oil fields and pipelines. An army without fuel cannot be effective, especially given the modern, mobile tactics employed by many armed forces.

In a report called Fueling The Future Force, the authors say that the U.S. Military must be entirely oil-free by 2040 if it wants to maintain a strategic edge and avoid the inevitable lack of oil. Can it be done?

There is plenty of doomsaying and prophesy about peak oil, though the simple fact remains there is not one person on the planet who actually knows how much easy oil is left to be tapped. What we are all pretty sure of is that oil won’t last forever, and considering that China and India are becoming the world’s largest automotive consumers, America will no longer have the biggest grasp on oil imports.

It is also no secret that many of the countries we get our oil from could one day be our enemies (or currently are). Venuzela’s Huge Chavez is constantly rattling the saber, and while Saudi Arabia loves us for the money we send them, 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and the export extremism in the form of funding extremist ideological teachings in a large proportion of muslim schools around the world. Both of those countries are also rife with political discontent; what would a rebellion in Saudi Arabia mean for our oil imports?

By 2040, the report estimates that oil will be in short supply… and it is possible. China could be buying upwards of 50 million automobiles a year. Even if they are all hybrids, that is still a lot of fuel. Even if oil is still available, it could be outrageously expensive. Imagine trying to fight a war where gas cost $400 a gallon. That could get expensive.

The report says that 77% of the military’s energy supply comes from petrol. That is a lot, and it also means we have to ship oil to some rather remote locations just to power our fighting force. The military is starting to recognize the advantages of alternative power sources though. There is wind and sunshine just about everywhere, and nobody controls it Mr. Burns style. There is a lot of talk about trimming the fat from the government these days too; greening the military is a great way to do that. A greener, leaner military means a win for all, and often times that technology will trickle down into the public sector. Can the military go green in just 30 years though? Seems like a tall order, even for the planet’s premier fighting force.

Source: Fueling The Future Force via TreeHugger | Image: US Army Flickr

Infiniti was introduced to America in 1989 as the luxury arm of Nissan, and since then it has blossomed to be an outright competitor for many European luxury sports brands like BMW and Audi. I’ve always had a soft spot in my heart for the Inifiniti G35/37, and it has a very competitive entry price as well. I knew it wouldn’t take long for Infiniti to make plans for its own version of Nissan’s upcoming electric car, the LEAF.

Here it is… the first blurry sketch. What do you think?

I am of the opinion that most electric cars should, for the time being, be aimed at the upscale market due to the inherent costliness of current electric vehicle technology. I’m also hoping automakers will promote the power and speed electric vehicles can achieve, as there is still a general consensus out there that electric vehicles are slow and boring.

Nissan seems to be reading my mind. The Infiniti electric vehicle, which is due out sometime in 2013, will be a “stylish, high performance five-seat luxury vehicle with zero emissions technology.” It will of course be based on the LEAF… though it might ditch the Versa platform for something a little bigger (perhaps the Altima?) Sounds like a car I could see myself in. I just hope they can come up with a better name than this numbers crap Infiniti (and other luxury car makers, quite frankly) seem obsessed with. Infiniti Zero, maybe?

Source: Nissan

America doesn’t seem to like diesels. About 2% of the vehicles on the road in America are diesels, and that includes many heavy duty trucks and haulers. Why the hatred? Back in the 1980′s, diesels were loud, unreliable, and smelly, and they never really caught on… But modern diesels a reliable, quiet, don’t smell and get great fuel economy. America was able to migrate from large cars to smaller cars without too much pain, so can the same happen for diesels? GM seems to think so.

General Motors is considering a “wide variety” of diesel vehicles for its future lineup, though nothing is set in stone yet.

Diesels are a sore subject for many of us pining for better fuel economy here in America. While 50% of European vehicle sales come with a diesel engine, options in America are incredibly limited. General Motors has not offered a diesel car since the 1980′s, though they do have a diesel engine option for their trucks. GM’s diesel debacle back in the 1980′s apparently left a very sour taste in executives mouths. For example, the Cadillac Seville diesel was relentlessly unreliable, and Cadillac buyers turned away from the brand in droves.

Yet if GM brings diesels back, it likely won’t be in their luxury brand, at least not at first. GM has a four-cylinder EcoTec diesel engine for sale in Europe, and they are bringing their best-selling Cruze to America soon too. GM and diesels, will this be a story with a happy ending? Or another horror story?

Source: Wards Auto (subscription required)

China is currently the world’s largest auto market, and is on track to sell anywhere from 15 to 20 million cars this year. By 2030, China could be buying 50 million new cars annually. That is a lot of cars, though thankfully, China is hoping to be the world’s leader in electric cars and other alternative fuels. They are shoveling money at domestic car makers to get them to produce electric and hybrid vehicles. They are also considering some less-than-friendly methods of acquiring new technology as well.

Chinese leaders are mulling a plan that would require foreign automakers to merge with domestic Chinese car makers and share their intellectual property with them if they want to sell electric or hybrid vehicles in China. Naturally, foreign car companies are crying foul.

The Chinese market is of growing importance to automakers around the world. With so much money up for grabs, everybody wants to get a piece of the pie. China also wants to position itself as a leader in green technology, which includes electric, hybrid, and other alt-fuel vehicles. Companies like BYD are already touting their electric cars designed for the masses. While much of the technology that we find in our cars and computers today is manufactured in China, they aren’t quite up to par with the rest of the developed world when it comes to research and development.

So China’s leaders want foreign car companies to bring their technology to China. The catch? Form a joint venture with a Chinese car company in which the foreign company could only hold a 49% stake. They would have to share their technology with domestic Chinese automakers. So far, this plan is merely a draft, but it has kept companies like Toyota from launching its latest Prius in China until the rules are clearer.

This news came out about the same time that Japan accused China is halting shipments of rare earth elements to their companies in response to the arrest of a Chinese fishing captain. China is getting pretty bold in its strong-arm tactics, but these same tactics could backfire. China hasn’t cultivated a domestic car company that can compete with the rest of the world, so they are trying to force other automakers into bolstering their lineups. I doubt any European, U.S., or Japanese company will willingly sign up for this though. Would you want to give up your hard-earned technology to some up-and-comer who hasn’t even cut their teeth in the industry yet?

Is the business worth the risk of losing their intellectual property?

Source: Wall Street Journal Image: BYD

People don’t believe me when I tell them I can get 25 mpg out of my ’92 Jeep Wrangler. Sure, it was all highway mileage, and the speedometer never crept over 55 mph… but I still did it. It just goes to show that often, the most important factor when it comes to gas mileage isn’t the car, but the driver. A light foot means more mileage, while a heavy foot means, well… less mileage.

GM seems to have reached this understanding as well. On Thursday, they revised the Chevy Volt’s expected all-electric range from 40 miles, to between 25 and 50 miles. Sounds better to me, though some people might accuse GM of the ol’ “bait and switch.”

This new information was revealed in filings with the Securities Exchange Commission regarding GM’s upcoming IPO. The reasons for the 40 mile range are many. GM claims that 80% of commuters drive 40 miles or less to work every day. Thus, GM could market the Volt as a commuter car that takes away the need for frequent fill-ups. Just like any car though (electric or gas-powered included), the range of the Volt can be dramatically affected not just by how you drive, but where you drive and the weather as well. Instead of sticking with the absolute 40-mile range, GM has revised the Volt’s electric range to between 25 and 50 miles.

Personally, I have no problem with this. It is just like fuel economy ratings. Just because the Prius is rated at 50 mpg, doesn’t mean you will always get 50 mpg. The same can be said about the Volt. If its the middle of winter and you’re driving up the Rocky Mountains as fast as you possibly can, don’t expect to go 50 miles without the range-extender kicking in. This revision will also cover GM’s rear end when the inevitable angry customer comes back claiming they only got 39 miles of all-electric range, rather than 40.

Does this in any way change your opinion of the Volt?

Source: SEC via GM-Volt