An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Dangerously, McCain ‘Casts the First Stone’

More on the Federal Court Ruling that Senior Bush Aides Are Subject to Congressional Subpoenas »

Here’s the root of the tire inflation story

Posted by JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor in Politics.
Jul 31st, 2008 | Comments

Look, I’m not opposed to anything that saves some energy. If you can leave your lights on less often, take less trips in your car or cook more meals at home you’ll probably save some money and use a bit less fuel. Good! But Obama’s recent comments about keeping your tires properly inflated to save energy have been around for a while. Check out this YouTube video.

Here’s where it came from:

The Carter Administration Published A Study That Proposed “Mandatory Tire Inflation Inspections” As Part Of Its “Energy Policy Blueprint For The Next Decade.” “A 45 mph speed limit during severe energy shortages and mandatory tire inflation inspections could become the law of the land under proposals in a new government study aimed at reducing oil imports. The study, released Tuesday and designed by the outgoing Carter administration as an energy policy blueprint for the next decade, finds the country could reduce oil imports by 2 million to 3 million barrels a day over the next 10 years.”

(Martin Crutsinger, “Lowered Speed Limits Proposed,” The Associated Press, 11/19/80)

Look, this is nothing new or brain trust oriented… if we can save some gas by having the correct tire pressure, great! But I’m afraid that isn’t the answer to our current energy problems, which are a fundamental problem of supply and demand. We need to supply more and consume less. This tire inflation meme is a helpful note, but if you think we’re not going to “drill our way out of this problem” well… we’re not going to inflate our tires out of it either.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

Neocon

Whats being missed as an aside is that if we produce just 1 million bbl of oil more per day that translates to roughly 40 billion less in money going to OPEC so they can fund terror.

I suspect we can ramp up production to increase supply by 2 million bbls per day. We can save another 2 million bbl per day in conservation.

What will happen is that China will continue to eat up the excess capacity and prices will go back up. That is why we need to get after it, get it going and then get these electric cars, hybrids and alternatives ramped up.

It takes it all to make the transition from oil to alternatives.

Jazz

Neo, you point out a very unpopular point which will have the pitchforks coming out for you shortly. The more energy we produce and control, the less monetary and power influence other countries (NOT just "mooslims") around the the world have over us.

Neocon

My energy proposal:

In America there are about 2.5 million rural farms and ranches and people just living outside of town on 2-50 acres of land. Especially in the midwest and west.

The government should adopt a massive program for these people to build a wind turbine on their property in addition to installing solar panels. The cost is about $44,000 dollars to do such. These could ALL be tied into the existing grids all over the country.

If the cost to the consumer is 44k then the government could pay for this up front with a fund set up that would take probably 10 years to complete. The grids that receive the additional power would then pay larger taxes based upon the estimated cost savings to the power company by the amount of electricity generated and put back into the grid. This money would go back into the Government coffers to continue to fund further expansion of the grid until the point was reached in which no more Solar or Wind turbines were needed.

The US governement spending 10 billion per year on building these would be inconsequential. And would spawn a new Green industry. Manufacture, sales and Service of these components. The private sector does the work with initial funding by the US government. Problem solved.

Benefits to the people who allow this to be done on their property? Free electricity.

Jazz

that's an interesting and awfully un-neoconish plan which could actually do some good.

DLS

Government has no business "reminding" (nagging) me to keep my tires inflated.

That should be reserved for childish losers who view government as their parent -- and I shouldn't have to pay for their demands.

DLS

Obama's not promising "free" tire inflation several times a year (either with air or with nitrogen), at least.

JSpencer

DLS, it's fortunate for us that we have the opportunity to learn more about what "childish losers" are through a study of your comments and opinions.

Neocon, what happened, did you have an epiphany? I like some of your ideas here, but they seem very UNlibertarian. Didn't you say you were a libertarian?

Neocon

IN almost all of my energy discussions I have always indicated that I believe that Oil is NOT the Future but it is now. Our entire infrastructure is based upon oil and gas. Thats not going to change anytime soon.

Im a libertarian. But Im not an idealogue. I believe that the number one threat to the safety of America is the energy crisis and it is a crisis. A balanced budget, paid off debt and energy independence is the road for a long and prosperous America. Anything less is criminal. Wind and solar is free power. Why we are not making use of FREE stuff is beyond me.

DLS

I'm not interested in adding remedial education to my task list.

casualobserver

Just admit it, Jazz......your just not good at spotting out of the box thinking!

DLS

"Why we are not making use of FREE stuff is beyond me."

It's long been attractive, but it's never been truly free. C'mon. Converting it to electricity or motion and transporting electricity has never been free.

DLS

"It takes it all to make the transition from oil to alternatives."

Bush could have included coal-to-liquids today but the quote I heard when he visited coal country didn't include this, sadly. It's one of the first near-term things we should jump to do.

Neocon

C'mon. Converting it to electricity or motion and transporting electricity has never been free.

I would disagree. I own acreage in Colorado. I have installed a wind turbine and 3 solar panels. My cost was about 44,000 dollars. I am connected to my local grid, they pay me a biannual check and my electricity is free.

Now if your saying that it costs to produce the products to put on the premisis then yes. I will admit that the cost is in oil and gas and electricity which all produces a carbon imprint. But only once.

I even got so addicted to my golf cart in Galveston that I decided to do my transporting in colorado with a golf cart as well. Ive often wondered why there are not more golf carts allowed on the streets of small towns accros America. Their range is not great but you can run one about 12-15 miles then plug it in at work and then drive home. Charging time is between 4-8 hours depending upon how far you go.

DLS

"that isn’t the answer to our current energy problems"

Conservation has never been a, much less _the_, magic solution to our problems, even if some might arrive at this by "studying" the issue and arriving at their pre-determined conclusion. Conservation helps and is a good individual thing, but it's not going to meet the needs that will be growing, not diminishing, for energy in this country. And adults don't like being nagged about it, particularly when we already know the role conservation plays and does not play with energy or anything else.

DLS

OK, Neocon -- provided you're paid back, then your net is better than minus 44,000 dollars, which certainly was not zero at that time. Also, most people aren't going to go off-grid or do a pay-back scheme. To the extent it might work, fine, but is it just going to be what some have advocated, compelling utilities to buy back the power, or is it going to be freely (liberally) repurchased if both parties agree to doing this?

Transmission enters the picture because most power won't be off-grid and we'll need to add that power to the grid, and if it's remote from populated areas where so much of the use is, there is transmission cost to take into consideration.

Yes, construction is one-shot, not a recurring expense.

Neocon

The property is tied into the grid via capacitor. The capacitor stores electricity from the wind turbine and the grid uses it if necessary. It knows how to pull it and when to pull it if needed.

My understanding is that the this grid uses a coal fired plant in northern colorado. The grid is rather sizeable and is tied to the energy company which runs all thru colorado. Thus the more wind turbines that came on line the less the coal plant would have to produce leading to less coal consumption. The Grid pulls your electricity and sells it to someone else. Its just another unique way for them to generate electricity without the overhead of taking care of your equiptment. Thats my job.

Ricorun

Man, I wish I had the time to get into this conversation, because now we're talkin!

Somewhat OT, but here's a very tantalizing bit of news. EEStor is still operating in deep stealth, and they've experienced delays. Hey, poop happens. You ought to google them, because it's sounding more and more like they're for real. I suspect we'll find out by the end of the year. But if they are, it wll be a game-changer -- a disruptive technology not just for transportation, but for virtually everything that does or could rely on energy storage (batteries) -- from utility scale to iPods and everything in between.

blog comments powered by Disqus