Video: Energy Freedom Day
posted at 3:00 pm on August 12, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Senator Jim DeMint and Representative Jeb Hensarling have launched a new website, Energy Freedom Day. It counts down the minutes — seconds, actually — until present moratoria on drilling in the OCS and in shale formations expire. Both men appear in their video announcement of the new site:
DeMint writes at his blog:
Dear Senators Reid and McConnell:
It is our hope that Democrats and Republicans will stand together to support American Energy Freedom Day on October 1, 2008. On this day, the current prohibitions on oil and gas exploration off the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and in the oil-shale fields of the West will expire, giving Americans the freedom to access their own energy and providing them with relief from sky-high prices at the pump.
We strongly encourage you to allow the expiration of these prohibitions on American energy exploration and production, as scheduled under current law, and we will actively oppose any attempt to extend them. Now is not the time to deny Americans access to their own energy supply.
Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to working with you to ensure a victory for the American people on American Energy Freedom Day.
You can add your name to this petition at Energy Freedom Day. Keep track of how long we have until America’s energy resources are freed from an arbitrary obstruction that sends hundreds of billions of dollars overseas and puts us at the mercy of foreign producers.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Run it all over the country (except for Kaleef-ornia…..it would be wasted there).
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 12, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Excellent job.
amerpundit on August 12, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Noooooooo, my friend. Run it here TONS. I relish the opportunity to jam it in the faces of the local libs….
Patrick S on August 12, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Show this ad! Show it in all 50 states all the time! Show it now and show it often! Show it on every channel! Show it during the games! If you need money to show it let us know and we will contribute!
sabbott on August 12, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Oh man, I’m so happy they mentioned the 800 billion barrels in the shale reserves.
jimmy the notable on August 12, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Fantastic, two great men in Washington telling it like it is. I would call the number, by as a Wyomingite, I don’t have to… although a Dem is threatening to take our one Senate seat this election: Vote Lummis!
Hunt035 on August 12, 2008 at 3:09 PM
So WHY ON EARTH is John McCain’s name in the list of Senators who have not signed on?
Beo on August 12, 2008 at 3:10 PM
How will Nancy and Obama try to hinder our efforts via environmental handcuffs.
marklmail on August 12, 2008 at 3:12 PM
I had no idea until earlier today that the current moratorium had an expiration date. So if Congress does nothing, they expire and we start drilling.
Congress would, just before a general election, have to explicitly extend the moratorium.
Sweet.
flipflop on August 12, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Just don’t tell Graham or Chambliss about it - they may try to undermine it via the gang of ten (ten standing for Token Energy Nightmare) to help re-elect dems in November.
Think_b4_speaking on August 12, 2008 at 3:13 PM
SECOND LOOK AT DEMINT (VP!)
omnipotent on August 12, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Nancy must know this date is coming, and coming fast. This is why she’s changing her tune on drilling, so that she can open drilling on her terms, and get government subsidies for inefficient renewable energy. I’m worried the Republicans will cave to her demands if she allows any increased drilling at all, and we’ll be stuck with a great deal of that oil still sitting there for another 10 years, or whatever length it is.
jimmy the notable on August 12, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Just HAD to jinx us by mentioning Lindsay Gramnesty’s name, didn’t you?
JK. :)
tickleddragon on August 12, 2008 at 3:18 PM
I wonder if candidate Sheehan has made a statement about this? She’s in awfully tight with Chavez and can probably bring and end to the energy crisis.
Hening on August 12, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Every time the libs talk about the oil shale in the West, they paint a picture of trickling mountain streams and pristine landscape.
Trust me folks, it ain’t all that.
Second look at DeMint!
cntrlfrk on August 12, 2008 at 3:27 PM
More More! That helped me feel a little more like a Republican.
Speakup on August 12, 2008 at 3:29 PM
No, it ain’t
Hunt035 on August 12, 2008 at 3:34 PM
I just did a little, and I mean less than 15 minutes, research on solar power vs. nuclear power. According to the New American the maximum, which is far more than the recoverable, amount of solar power available per acre in Albuquerque, NM, a region of the country blessed with a lot of sunshine, is 970 kW/acre.
The largest nuclear power plant in the US is the Palo Verde plant in AZ. It covers 4,000 acres and produces 3.2 GW from its three reactors.
Now, to get that same 3.2 GW from a solar array operating at 100% (a physical impossibility) the solar plant would require a little less than the same 4000 acres, ~3,300. This sounds like a great deal but in reality the physical maximum efficiency of modern solar cells only allows a conversion rate of about 10%. “The problem of maximizing power from sunlight has been known for at least 30 years, and is primarily one of physical limitations, not engineering technology.”
So this 3,300 acres in reality would require 33,000 acres to produce the same 3.2 GW as a nuclear power plant. That also assumes the entire 33,000 acres is covered, which, again is impossible. There needs to be spacing for panel movement, personnel, and probably vehicle traffic. So lets conservatively say to generate 3.2 GW during the peak sunshine hours would require 35,000 acres. That’s a lot of acreage for a plant that would only be able to produce electricity for 8-10 hours on a good sunny summer day.
I wish the eco-Marxists would expend as much energy doing research into the physics of wind and solar as they do agitating for it.
I don’t need to do the math for wind energy, you can find it here. Suffice it to say the 3.2 GW in the previous solar example I posted would require an area measured in hundreds of square miles, not square acres.
DerKrieger on August 12, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Whats really funny is the group that will kill solar energy??? Environmentalists…
You have to cover LARGE areas with solar panels to get the desired amounts of energy… and under those panels NOTHING can be growing… no plants, no animals, nothing.
The cry will be things like “think of the desert tortoise”…
Romeo13 on August 12, 2008 at 3:53 PM
I wish we could clone Sen. DeMint and make every Republican in Congress just like him. Hensarling’s a keeper, too, but DeMint…[eyes rolling back in head as Homer Simpson-like drooling commences]. Ahhhhh, DeMint…
aero on August 12, 2008 at 4:13 PM
They’ve got to do more of this. Pocket-book issues are real easy to understand.
They’ve also got to talk about nuclear and alternatives. Off-shore hydro-power, solar, and wind are probably never going to be efficent enough (compared to fossil and nuclear power)for the whole country, but having a diverse energy infrastructure only makes us more secure. And they should also talk about energy security, not just in terms of supply, but distribution security. Improving infrastructure, adding capacity, hardening against EMP threats, running lines underground to prevent storm/falling tree damage, etc.
If the current crisis between Georgia and Russia show us anything, its how vulnerable the west is to energy security threats. Especially as Russia could EMP us.
Iblis on August 12, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Did you miss the post on wind and solar just a couple up from yours?
DerKrieger on August 12, 2008 at 4:17 PM
So you would have to triple that 35,000 acres to get enough electricity to last you through the night, not to mention the number of acres that will have to be devoted to whatever magical storage mechanism to store the energy generated during the day so it can be used at night.
I notice that you are assuming the panels will move. This will take energy. Moving 100,000 acres of solar panels will require some serious horsepower, which will have to be supplied by the solar panels. As a rough guess, you are going to have to increase the save of your array by 10 to 20%.
So now we are up to 120,000 acres of solar panels to replace one nuclear power plant.
As one moves further north, you will need more panels to acheive the same amount of power.
As one leaves the desert, you will need more panels to compensate for the increased cloudiness.
All in all, solar power is fools power.
MarkTheGreat on August 12, 2008 at 4:18 PM
Absolutely. Unfortunately the Congress is made up largely of lawyers who are basically know-nothings when it comes to serious issues that require a foundational knowledge in science and economics. And they are failing miserably as serious representatives who shuold take it upon themselves to learn the facts and not operate on the same base emotional level as their constituents. Whatever happened to reason?
DerKrieger on August 12, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Another problem with solar power panels is the fact that they are easily damaged. Could you imagine what a tornado, or better yet a hurricane, would do to one of these solar power farms?
thekingtut on August 12, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Solar? Ask the Germans about that boondoggle.
marklmail on August 12, 2008 at 4:52 PM
A little long for Democrats but otherwise a slam dunk.
Mojave Mark on August 12, 2008 at 5:03 PM
thekingtut,
what about the million pounds of bird poop that get splattered on those solar panels?
Kokonut on August 12, 2008 at 5:15 PM
To supply my small home with solar electricity would be around $160,000. Given I currently use $2400 of electricty per year it will take me 67 years to break even..dOh!
trs on August 12, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Ah, joy. Awesome ad. Stick it to Nancy; make everyone realize that she and TheWarIsLostHarry Reid are the biggest obstacles, not timetables and technology and cost and, and, and all the other excuses the Libs keep making.
LickyLicky on August 12, 2008 at 5:53 PM
No, but I was also talking about hydro-power as an alternative, which you happily ignored.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34898
Geo-thermal would also be good, but like hydro its limited by geography.
Iblis on August 12, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Excellent post. I would just add one tag at the end:
PattyJ on August 12, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Got my bumper sticker from the Tenn. Rep. Party on my SUV for all of the Dimmocrats to read here in SoCal, (at least the ones who can read English).
/sarc
ic1redeye on August 13, 2008 at 12:48 AM
Ho hum. I think they cite the dems too much as the culprits. They alienate half of the electorate by doing that. It’s also disingenuous. The repubs have reinstated this same exact bill every year they were in control of both houses of congress, that they are now accusing the dems of using to keep us hostage to high energy prices.
I’m all in favor of lifting the ban, I just think it’s smoke and mirrors to accuse the other side of something our side is equally guilty of. It’s not Repub vs. Dem, it’s politicians vs. the rest of us.
samuelrylander on August 13, 2008 at 10:38 AM