From the Fact Check Desk: Are Obama's Claims About Inflating Car Tires Accurate?

Anyone has an updates with this issue?It's been talked about by known officials and i hope energy conservation will be fully established.

Tim wrote:

"Umm this assumes that nobody keeps proper inflation, and maintenance of their car. *** EPIC FAIL ***"

More like "Reading fail" on your part. Read further down in the article above:

"However, since estimates of significant tire underinflation affect only about a quarter of the cars on road -- as we noted above with the NHTSA statistics -- and it’s highly unlikely that 100% of the cars are in need of tune- ups at any given time, the maximum savings amount is probably closer to 10%, Verrastro says.

'So the production offset is more likely to approach 800 thousand barrels per day – a tidy sum and a worthwhile target for savings, but not equal to OCS output,'"

Using the website FuelEconomy, Verrastro writes, we can estimate that "the maximum (estimated) fuel economy (i.e., mileage) savings drivers could expect as a result of keeping their engines properly tuned (4%), replacing air filters (up to 10%), properly inflating tires (up to 3%) and using the correct motor oil (1-2%) is 18-19%. Since American drivers use roughly 380 million gallons of gasoline (not including diesel) per day, an 18% improvement translates into a savings of 68 million gallons, or 1.62 million barrels of oil per day."

--

Umm this assumes that nobody keeps proper inflation, and maintenance of their car. *** EPIC FAIL ***

"It means that if every American was running around with significantly underinflated tires and improperly tuned cars, then, yes, Sen. Obama is right, the savings from inflating the tires and tuning the cars could arguably match or exceed *current output from the OCS.*"

But Obama didn't say current output, nor has that been the issue discussed on either side. The issue is how much NEW drilling could produce.

But nice job of finding and apples to oranges comparison. Very professional.

"the NHTSA tire information, the indication is that 27% have ONE or more underinflated tire, and only 3% have all four, another 3% had 3, and 7% had two, leaving 14% with only one low tire. Calculating that out, the savings would be 0.4%"

Awesome comment Southerner!

I found the NHTSA info saying 27% for at least one and 3% for all four. Where do the other #'s come from? I'm eager to give them to a friend who's been waving the TIME.com Grunwald piece in my face!

Of course you are hearing a lot more about the issue when oil is at $120 per barrel than when it was $70 per barrel. So the fact that you personally didn't hear anything about it a year ago doesn't mean that it only became economically feasible to recover oil in the last year. If that was the case, why was a ban on offshore drilling even needed? Why ban oil companies from drilling if they would only lose money by doing it?

The obvious answer is that there has been recoverable oil off our coasts the entire time. Keep in mind that when the ban was first created in the early 80's, oil was close to $12 per barrel ....and yet there was active drilling off the coast of California at the time. So not hard to figure out that oil supplies could easily be increased by lifting the ban. In fact, some of those very same drilling platforms off the coast of California are still in place, able to become operational within a year. The bottom line is that the cost of keeping the ban in place is astronomically higher now than when it was first implemented.

This is what makes it so egregious when the Democrats refuse to even allow a vote on the issue, and instead propose inane ideas like surtaxing our domestic oil companies. Now THAT will wean us off of foreign oil!

The Democrats' dirty little secret is that they WANT oil to cost a lot, but know full well the issue is a total loser with voters. How else to keep pulling in money from the environmental lobby? If it can get people to drive more fuel efficient cars, who cares that it reeks havoc on our economy, increases the cost of nearly every goods and service we have, and continues to send even more money to terrorist supporting regimes? So their solution is to do absolutely nothing, avoid actually voting on lifting the ban if they can get away with it (wouldn't want to have actually face the voters this fall having to explain an actual vote, would we?), and hope voters don't recognize the obvious when they see it.

Brian, I don't remember much talk about ending the drilling moritorium when oil was $70 a barrel. Something tells me it wasn't that attractive to the oil companies. Now, at $120/bbl, there's a whole lot of interest.

if oil was $70/bbl,would we even be talking about lifting the moratorium?

Walter_66 Sez..."so we'll get 10 times more oil at $120 per barrel.....where's the savngs in that? We have $120/barrel of oil today and the price of gas is $3.60 so if we had 10 times the amount of $120 oil the gas price would be what.......$3.60? "

I was simply making the point that a dramatically greater amount of oil would be available at the higher price. If the "proof" can only be demonstrated with rediculously optimistic assumptions about tire pressure savings AND equally rediculously pessimistic assumptions about the amount of recoverable oil, than ANY additional oil recovery makes it fall apart (as if it hasn't already).

The sensitivity to how much more would be recoverable vs what the prevailing price is would definitely not be a straight line. Conceivably it could be 10X with oil prices at $70 per barrel. Doesn't matter. What we definitely know is that the 200,000 barrels per day figure is completely bogus, and anyone that actually read the report and knowingly used it as "proof" of Obama's assertion was outright lying.

Verrastro's numbers still VASTLY overstate potential savings. His worst case scenario, which assumes that every car in America has 4 underinflated tires, an incredibly filthy air cleaner, needs a tuneup and is using the wrong oil, is 18-19% savings. He then correctly says that this cannot be true. However, he then adjusts the potential savings to 10%? SO what he's suggesting is that OVER HALF the cars in America have all those faults, or that nearly every car has at least some of them.

Looking at the NHTSA tire information, the indication is that 27% have ONE or more underinflated tire, and only 3% have all four, another 3% had 3, and 7% had two, leaving 14% with only one low tire. Calculating that out, the savings would be 0.4% That's closer to 1/10th of the worst case scenario than 1/2.

Some of the other categories of "savings" are even less likely. How many cars in the US are using the wrong oil? How many have plugged air filters?(even for those who do, I would dispute the 10%, as that number is probably for a carbeurated car, not a fuel injected car with oxygen sensors and a computer that automatically adjusts the fuel/air mixture.

Lets give him the benefit of the doubt, and say the ratio is the same as for the tires, 12.25% of the worst case scenario. That means that, rather than 19% saved, it is likely that those changes would save 2.32%, resluting in less than 1/4th of his estimate of 800 million barrels a day (approximately 180 million). That also assumes that EVERY single auto that has one of the above problems is fixed, and that from that point forward, every single car is constantly maintained at 100%.

Air costs 75 cents at my local gas station. Has anybody figured in the cost of air to this equation? Overall, it's cheaper to say a little underinflated for a few extra days than wasting quarters on that machine. Will I even save as much energy inflating my tires as it takes to run the air pump?

Brian sez......" At today's price of roughly $120 per barrel, 10 times or more of this amount could be viably recovered."

so we'll get 10 times more oil at $120 per barrel.....where's the savngs in that? We have $120/barrel of oil today and the price of gas is $3.60 so if we had 10 times the amount of $120 oil the gas price would be what.......$3.60?

David Dennis sez....I'm a little confused. Kevin and one other person has asserted some strange beliefs that one barrel of oil (42 gallons) winds up with either 12 or 19.6 gallons of gas.

If one barrel is 12 gallons, and a barrel was recently selling for $147, then gas would sell at a wholesale price of $12.25.

You would have to assume that in that barrel you have ONLY gas. That's just simply not the case. There's diesel which is a lower grade of fuel but because of market manipulation by the oil companies is more expensive. There's motor oil, kerosene, jet fuel etc.

Seeing as most engines today are run by engine management computers that keep things pretty optimized, and that a 'tune up' with change of spark plugs, etc. is recommended every 100,000 miles on many cars, I'm wondering how many cars are really that out of tune. We haven't bought a car that needed a 'tune-up' any more frequently other than change of fluids since 1994 or so.

Assuming the stats above are accurate, it assumes "perfection" in execution. If we are going to assume (or really fantasize) perfection why stop there? How many people take the less perfect way to their destination? People should optimize their gas usage by correct formulas of distance, speed, constancy of speed, lights etc. Lets do a Jimmy Carter and lower the speed limit by 20% on every road (or 30%). Let's require minimum mpg usage for every automobile which is legal (this is like a "free market" cap and trade system). In fact Gore's trading company can have a retail unit where we buy and sell mpg credits. This can go on ad infinitum, on are no less absurd. Why are they absurd? It is the mind set of an obsessive compulsive which thinks the ultimate good is ---in this case at least--saving CO2 emissions. This is a mindset whose ultimate goal is to "mandate behavior", create laws and control the populace. It is prima facie laughable and dangerous and not deserving of serious commentary--except for the fact that people are gtaking it seriously.

Please people - we need oil, and we need it for the forseeable future. So - how do we get it - drill, produce from oil shale - whatever we have to do. Conservation by inflating tires may save a small amout of gasoline, but in the grand scheme of things - not a hell-of-a-lot. Drill on the outer continnental shelf - the inner continental shelf - wherever the seismic tests and geology tell us there are vast pools of oil. We must go for it.
If it hurts your scenic view - so be it - it's better than having families not be able to drive to work, or cut down on their food because they have to pay $4.00 for a gallon of gasoline.
If there is an oil spill (and there may not be one, remember) - we will clean it up, and, excuse me, if a relatively few fish or sea gulls die, that's the price we (they(?)) will pay. More fish and sea gulls will come along. That's the way of nature - they reproduce. I'd rather that happen than have people not be able to heat their homes. (Remember - it may not happen - consider that the worst case scenarion will not happen)You want more domestic oil - turn the oil companies loose to do what they do best - find, produce and deliver oil. It'll take a few years to get into full swing, but remember - if Pres. Clinton had not vetoed the ANWAR drilling bill, ten + years ago - that oil would be available today. We can't go back - but let's not make the same mistake twice.
Stop worrying about how much will be saved by properly inflating tires. America is in crisis - and it must act while it can.
Remember the old poem:
"No matter what your aim in life,
No matter what your goal,
Keep your eye upon the donut,
and not upon the hole."
The goal is to get more domestic oil. Everything else is a side show.
I know this is not a politicaly correct solution - danger to those furry little pelicans, or fish, etc. - but sometimes the risk is well worth the reward.
Of course - solar, wind, coal etc. must be pursued - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't drill, drill, drill. There is no reasonable alternative, no matter what anyone says.

After reading through a lot of these comments, a few things that need to be corrected, mostly about the Energy Information Administration Study:

1st, the 200,000 barrels per day number is an estimate of what could be economically recovered if the oil price were only $60 per barrel in 2030. That's right, $60 per barrel. At today's price of roughly $120 per barrel, 10 times or more of this amount could be viably recovered. The study was obviously WAY off of where it assumed oil prices would be. Just one year into the 30 year projection, it's wrong by a mere $70 per barrel.

So the "proof" that Obama is right hinges on the assumption that nearly every car in America has under-inlfated tires with idiots for owners that needed Obama to remind them to inflate them AND that barely any of the OCS oil would be retreivable because oil will be at $50 to $60 per barrel for the next 25 years.

2nd, the only reason 2030 is even cited is that's how far out the study went. It probably wasn't lost on some that many people would just assume that 2030 is the first year any oil would come online, and the comments on this board prove them right. After all, who would actually go through the trouble to check the report for themselves? So in fact, 2030 is NOT the first year any oil would be seen. Instead, the study assumes the first oil would come online in 10 years (where have you heard this number before?). Of course, this 10 year estimate is also driven partly by the rediculously low estimate of what oil prices would be. Not hard to figure out that it will be easier to economically recover oil much sooner with oil prices being higher.

Powerline blog did just a little bit of research (i.e. actually read the study) and raised these basic points.

3rd, to those that don't get why drilling for oil that won't arrive until some time in the future could lower prices now: the mere knowledge that supplies will increase in the future will impact prices TODAY. Anyone with any marginal capacity to pump oil now will do it BEFORE additional supplies come online ...thereby increasing supplies now. Without any additional capacity opening up, there is little incentive for the CARTELs to spend a dime more to open capacity today. The big run-up in price in just the last year indicates how quickly prices can respond to changes in supply/demand outlook.

Lastly, before anyone brings up the argument that the signaling effect of opening new capacity would be so wildly successful, that oil prices would drop too low to profitably recover enough oil from the OCS (creating a bizarre circular loop)....it wouldn't.

Considering the feasibility of getting everybody in this country with a car to keep it getting its top mileage every day of the year, I'd say offshore drilling is a whole lot easier. This kind of "fact checking" is not really useful, because Mr. Verrastro's maximum (estimated) fuel economy isn't really a choice.

If we quit burning fossil fuels, would global warming be reversed? What difference does it make? People have always burned fuel to make their lives better. Getting them to stop is a fool's errand, and so is expecting people to check their tire pressure every time they drive. It's a bureaucratic fix, but it's also a nuisance most people will skip.

You say: "Survey information from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that 27% of the cars on the road have a significantly under-inflated tire." The operative word is "a". The fueleconomy.gov site says 27% have "1 or more" underinflated ttires.

The fueleconomy.gov site further says: "Under-inflated tires can lower gas mileage by 0.4 percent for every 1 psi drop in pressure *of all four tires*."

You then tacitly assume that all of those vehicles with underinflated tires have all four tires underinflated by an average of 7.5 psi to get your 3% savings.

This does not compute. The savings from everyone properly inflating their tires
is going to be miniscule.

Jim Hurley said:
"The only way that you can accurately and properly inflate your tires is to do it when they are cold, after you drive to the gas station they have warmed up and you can no longer get the correct pressure. ... Now that means the first thing everyone will have to do is put a compressor in their garage so they can check the pressure and then inflate their tires."

Actually there's a much cheaper solution than having your own air compressor. Buy a tire pressure gage and measure your tires while they are cold to determine how much extra air they need. Then go to the gas station, remeasure them (now that they've warmed up), and add the corresponding incremental percentages of air. It won't be exact (since you're adding cold air to warm air) but it will be close.

This does not mean that I think we should substitute conservation for more oil exploration and energy production. It just means that some conservation measures such as proper tire inflation do not require a lot of expensive equipment. It just requires investing your time.

I don't usually bother. My time is generally more valuable to me than shaving tiny fractions off of my energy costs. If gasoline gets up to $5 or $6 per gallon I may reconsider. Other people with a lower price point trade-off may choose to invest their time now in conservation efforts.

Let's leave it up to individual choices. Get government out of the way of oil and shale exploitation; eliminate arbitrary regulations and environmental restrictions which have no substantive value; reduce tax rates so as to encourage investment and technical innovation; and allow the free market to operate.

Gee I was wondering why we needed all those wind turbines in tornado alley. Now I know, we will sail our cars to the Midwest to fill our tires.