Senator Manchin struggles to find common ground

From the Article by Karl Evers-Hillstrom, The Hill News Service, August 13, 2022

Coal country is still reeling from Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-W.Va.) decision to back a sweeping climate and energy package that will accelerate the nation’s transition away from coal.

In the Mountain State, the once-burgeoning coal industry says it feels betrayed, displaced coal workers are celebrating the bill’s black lubenefits and Republicans seeking Manchin’s seat in 2024 are licking their chops.

The Inflation Reduction Act includes several Appalachia-centric measures, including subsidies to build renewable energy projects on former coal fields and the permanent extension of a tax on coal companies that funds benefits for miners suffering from black lung disease.

Advocates who fought hard for the black lung fund extension — they warned Manchin that the benefits were at risk when the excise tax expired last year — hailed its inclusion as a breakthrough victory for workers who don’t typically wield influence in Washington.

“We were surprised. We thought it’d be a four-year or 10-year [extension],” said Gary Hairston, a former West Virginia coal miner of 27 years who now leads the National Black Lung Association. “So, when we got it permanently, we might not need to worry about it no more.”

The coal industry, on the other hand, attacked Manchin for making the tax permanent and pushing policies to subsidize alternative energy sources. Leaders of Appalachian coal groups, including the West Virginia Coal Association, wrote in a recent letter that the excise tax will cost them tens of millions of dollars and hurt their ability to compete and keep energy costs stable. “This legislation is so egregious, it leaves those of us that call Senator Manchin a friend, shocked and disheartened,” they wrote.

Backlash from the coal industry, conservative groups and GOP lawmakers has opened up an opportunity for political challengers ahead of Manchin’s upcoming reelection battle. Rep. Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.) is running television ads accusing the Democratic senator of crossing the state’s coal industry, an apparent signal that he plans to challenge him in 2024. “Alex Mooney won’t let Joe Manchin and Joe Biden destroy our coal industry and devastate West Virginia,” the ad tells viewers.

Cecil Roberts, a longtime Manchin ally who leads the United Mine Workers of America, the nation’s largest coal miners’ union, called those critiques “absolute bull” in a recent statement. He noted that the bill includes tax credits for carbon capture that could extend the life of coal plants and authorizes $4 billion in tax credits exclusively for companies that create new clean energy jobs in coal communities. “I cannot understand how any politician who actually cares about working West Virginians and the quality of their lives can trash this bill,” Roberts said. “They should be thanking Senator Manchin, not attacking him.”

In a response to the West Virginia Coal Association, Manchin noted that the excise tax has consistently been extended at the same rate for nearly four decades and said that coal companies can take advantage of a $5 billion fund in the climate bill to boost their efficiency. “The big pushback I’m getting from the coal operators right now is having to pay the black lung fund, and that’s a shame,” Manchin told reporters on a recent conference call.

Manchin added that despite his best efforts to boost coal, its prevalence has declined under both Democratic and Republican presidents, indicating that his state needs to take advantage of emerging energy technologies to keep up. Hundreds of coal-fired power plants have shut down over the last decade amid the emergence of cleaner and more efficient energy sources, causing pain for Appalachia’s coal mining companies.

At its peak, the West Virginia coal industry employed more than 125,000 employees, a figure that dropped to less than 12,000 in addition to 36,000 independent contractors, according to estimates from the West Virginia Office of Miners’ Health, Safety and Training.

While they’ve been slow to adopt clean energy policies, West Virginia legislators in recent years passed bills to boost solar projects despite opposition from the coal industry.

The Nature Conservancy and West Virginia Chamber of Commerce released a survey last year finding that most West Virginians believe that the state should reduce its reliance on coal and shift to renewable energy sources, a significant shift in public opinion.

“This is a traditional energy state, but folks in West Virginia are also interested in looking at what the new energy economy can bring to the state in terms of jobs, and economic development and economic diversification,” said Thomas Minney, West Virginia state director at the Nature Conservancy.

As part of his climate deal, Manchin also secured an agreement from Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) that Democrats will pass legislation to expedite approval of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, which spans hundreds of miles in West Virginia and Virginia. Manchin says the natural gas pipeline, which has drawn opposition from local environmental and property rights advocates, would create 2,500 jobs in his home state and help make up for coal’s decline.

Still, it’s not clear whether deep-red West Virginia will embrace Manchin’s climate deal, given that his popularity soared around the time that he told Democrats he couldn’t support the $2 trillion Build Back Better Act.

From the first quarter of 2021 to 2022, Manchin’s approval rating shot up 17 points to 57 percent, the biggest increase among all senators over that period, according to Morning Consult. Nearly 7 in 10 West Virginia Republicans expressed support for the Democratic senator as he railed against his own party’s spending package.

QUOTATION ~ Change is inevitable in life. You can either resist it and potentially get run over by it, or you can choose to cooperate with it, adapt to it, and learn how to benefit from it. Jack Canfield.

Bruce Alberts, Scientist

“Science is an amazing human invention—a huge community effort to discover truth…”

By Bruce Alberts, Science, 31 Mar 2017: Volume 355, Issue 6332, pp. 1353

Summary — The recent election cycle has made it abundantly clear to most scientists that a large fraction of adults in the United States are surprisingly susceptible to illogical arguments designed to fool them. Research suggests that a great many people assess evidence not as scientists are trained to do, but rather in an emotion-biased manner that is strongly influenced by the beliefs of their cultural cohort. The increasing dominance of social media reinforces this natural human tendency. The consequences are frightening for those who believe that, for humanity to prosper, both personal and community decisions must be based on the best science. This conclusion demands a major rethinking of the goals and methods of science education at all levels—from kindergarten through college.

Why science? Science is an amazing human invention—a huge community effort to discover truth through repeated cycles of testing and self-correction. As a result, we now have a deep understanding of how the natural world works. The same type of understandings that allow humans to precisely deliver the Curiosity Rover to Mars also enable us to ensure that vaccination is safe and to forecast the danger of continued carbon dioxide emissions.

But most of those who teach science, including myself, have failed to recognize the crucial importance of producing adults who understand the nature of the scientific enterprise well enough to defend its judgments. In a recent survey, for example, the statement that “climate scientists’ research findings are influenced by the best available scientific evidence most of the time” was supported by only 32% of U.S. adults (www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate).

This result is shocking to scientists. But it becomes much less surprising once one admits that science courses are generally taught as the “revealed wisdom” of scientists, with little or no effort spent on conveying the nature of the scientific process. For example, there is a long-standing belief that every introductory college biology course must “cover” a staggering amount of knowledge. There is no time to focus on a much more important goal—insisting that every student understand exactly how scientific knowledge is generated. Science is not a belief system; it is, instead, a very special way of learning about the true nature of the observable world. And yet a large proportion of adults graduate from college without this realization, despite having been forced to memorize a great many scientific facts.

In previous commentaries on this page, I have argued that “less is more” in science education, and that learning how to think like a scientist—with an insistence on using evidence and logic for decision-making—should become the central goal of all science educators. I have also pointed out that, because introductory science courses taught at universities define what is meant by “science education,” college science faculty are the rate-limiting factor for dramatically improving science education at lower levels.

As an important aid for teaching college science, I call attention to an expanded and redesigned resource—Science in the Classroom, a growing collection of 80 research articles (www.scienceintheclassroom.org/).

As explained in a brief video (youtu.be/Y6LwiIniYmo), selected Science articles have been carefully annotated for teaching, thanks to the efforts of many volunteers. This free resource makes it readily possible for every college student to read an outstanding research paper as part of a course module focused on teaching the scientific process, and to thereby learn how science actually works.

Science Community

Please try it out, volunteer, and provide feedback at scienceeducation@aaas.org.

Former Senator John D. Rockefeller IV

Building a Resilient WV by Taking Control of the Mountain State’s Future

Article by Duane Nichols, FrackCheckWV.net, April 9, 2016

On April 8^th, the WVU Center for Energy and Sustainable Development in the College of Law sponsored their “National Energy Conference 2016.”  These conferences are video recorded and made available on the world-wide-web. Program information is available at: http://energy.law.wvu.edu/conference2016

The “keynote speaker” was former US Senator and former Governor John D. Rockefeller, IV, who came to WV as a VISTA Volunteer in 1964. Senator Rockefeller described his optimism and hope for the economy and well being of the residents of the State.  He continues to work to advance the health and welfare of everyone.  And, education is an essential component of this.

Samuel Petsonk, Attorney with Mountain State Justice, spoke on “Current Federal Policy Proposals for Coal-Reliant Community Support.”  He summarized the POWER + Plan now underway in West Virginia.  This program is administered under the WV Hub organization.

What is the Hub?

The WV Hub is a statewide, non-profit organization that helps communities come together to set goals for their future and connects them to the rich network of resources they need to meet those goals. In our network there are resources for:

Convening community conversations, Training community leaders, Recruiting volunteers, Building infrastructure, Reclaiming abandoned buildings, Sustaining healthy food production, Teaching political action, Developing small businesses, Adopting healthy lifestyles, Finding funding for projects, Fostering community life …

> > > > > > > > > > >

What is POWER +?

POWER + is the second phase of the POWER Initiative.

POWER (Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization), is a coordinated effort among multiple federal agencies to provide coordinated investments in communities negatively impacted by changes in the coal industry and power sector.

POWER + will provide investments in communities impacted by changes in the power sector and coal industry, through a competitively awarded series of grants. These funds will help communities to: diversify their economies; create good jobs in existing or new industries; attract new sources of job-creating investment; and provide reemployment services and job training to dislocated workers in order to connect them to high-quality, in-demand jobs.

For West Virginia, POWER + represents a significant opportunity for collaboration amongst regions, sectors and organizations to secure federal funding support for integrated economic development plans and projects.

KEY POINTS:

### The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) will provide $50 million this fiscal year for projects that will help rebuild the economies of Appalachian communities suffering from the decline of the coal industry.

### The U.S. Economic Development Administration will have an additional $15 million available for coal-impacted communities across the nation.

### Other federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture will also award funds through POWER +.

### It is anticipated the ARC will have an additional $50 million to help rebuild Appalachian communities in FY 2017.

### ARC funding will support a range of economic development planning and implementation activities, including developing entrepreneurial ecosystems, facilitating access to capital investments and new markets, and addressing barriers related to adequate water, sewer, and telecommunication infrastructure.

### Preference will be given to applications that involve regional collaborations and strategic partnerships.

Beginning in 2015, The Hub has served the pivotal role of convening potential applicants and facilitating collaboration between the various agencies, organizations and individuals with a vested interest in diversifying the economy of West Virginia’s coalfields.

That collaboration is actively encouraged by the funding organizations, and will be essential to West Virginia being able to attract the greatest possible share of the available funds, for the greatest impact.

Anyone interested in POWER + funding opportunities is urged to contact The Hub’s Executive Director.

The latest information about POWER +, including the ARC’s funding criteria and call for applications documents, will be made public as soon as they are available.

> > > > > > > > > > >

Appointment of Stephanie Tyree Marks Beginning of New Era at The Hub

From an Article by Hub Staff, www.hub.org, April 8, 2016

Stephanie Tyree was instrumental in organizing the regional POWER information meeting at Hawk’s Nest in 2015.

It gives us tremendous pleasure to announce that Stephanie Tyree is the new Executive Director of the WV Community Development Hub.

Stephanie is a superb choice. She understands and embraces the collaborative culture we have created at The Hub.

We conducted a nationwide search and received dozens of applications from highly qualified and experienced individuals in West Virginia and 13 other states. We were impressed with the diversity of the applicants and appreciative of their interest in and knowledge of The Hub. A number of the out-of-state applicants were hoping that securing this position would give them an opportunity to return to their home state.

The Hub has always embraced change, and continued evolution is necessary for our work to succeed.

The transition of The Hub’s leadership to Stephanie Tyree will officially begin at Hubapalooza, our annual community development network event, on April 28. We encourage each of you to join us there in welcoming her to this new role. Stephanie will move into the role of Executive Director on June 1.

AAAS Science, Issue June 27th

SCIENCE: Special Issue: Volume 344 no. 6191 pp. 1464-1467

From an Introduction by David Malakoff, SCIENCE, June 27, 2014

702—PERCENT INCREASE IN U.S. SHALE GAS PRODUCTION SINCE 2007

40—PERCENT SHALE GAS SHARE OF TOTAL U.S. PRODUCTION

47—PERCENT INCREASE IN U.S. ELECTRICITY GENERATED USING NATURAL GAS SINCE 2005

15,000,000—LITERS OF WATER AND CHEMICALS PUMPED INTO A TYPICAL FRACKING WELL

Nearly 70 years ago, a small group of engineers and geologists gathered at a dusty gas drilling site in southwestern Kansas to try an experiment. They pumped nearly 4000 liters of gelled gasoline and sand some 700 meters down a borehole into a thick bed of limestone, in hopes that the pressurized gunk would fracture the rock and release more natural gas. The “hydraulic fracturing” test failed. But success ultimately followed: Today, fracking, as it is known, is revolutionizing the energy industry, enabling firms to extract natural gas from a source once considered unpromising—vast deposits of shale, which is too dense for gas to flow freely (Science, 25 June 2010, p. 1624). By penetrating the shale with boreholes that bend horizontally, and then pumping in millions of liters of fluids and sand under high pressure, drillers can force open minute cracks that release valuable streams of gas.

Extensive shale gas deposits—or “plays” as they are known in the industry—are found around the world (see map). So far, however, the shale gas boom is largely confined to the United States, where over the past decade companies have drilled thousands of fracking wells into once obscure geological formations, including the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, the Barnett in Texas, and the Haynesville in Louisiana. (In other shale plays, such as the Bakken in North Dakota, fracking is primarily used to produce oil.)

The resulting surge in natural gas is remaking U.S. energy markets—and causing economic ripple effects globally. Shale gas has made the United States the world’s leading natural gas producer and now accounts for about 40% of U.S. production, up from less than 2% in 2001. The share is projected to grow to 53% by 2040, and natural gas prices have tumbled as abundance grows (see graphs). That’s helped accelerate a shift away from coal to natural gas for generating electricity and prompted energy-intensive manufacturing firms to shift production from overseas factories to the United States, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. The United States is also boosting natural gas exports to other nations—reversing its traditional role as an energy importer.

The shale gas shake-up has been accompanied by plenty of controversy—and new research—as the stories in this special section illustrate. Scientists are debating fracking’s impact on water quality (see p. 1468) and whether the shale gas boom will help or hurt efforts to curb climate change (see p. 1472). They are also exploring potential links to human-caused earthquakes (Science, 23 March 2012, p. 1436), air pollution, and habitat fragmentation.

Basic researchers are also sizing up this new resource. They are searching for life deep in shale deposits (p. 1470) and potentially transformative ways to convert the methane in natural gas into liquid fuels and other chemicals (p. 1474). Some are examining the origins of shale gas, trying to determine whether it is primarily the product of methane-producing microbes or thermal breakdown of organic matter (see p. 1500). And analysts continue to debate just how much shale gas is really out there—and how quickly the current boom could turn bust.

For the moment, any downturn seems distant. Canada, which already gets 15% of its natural gas from shale, is ramping up production. China, Europe, and Russia are eyeing their essentially untapped shale deposits. Public opposition to fracking is growing in some nations, however, and drilling technologies that have performed well in the United States may not work well overseas, where the shale can have very different properties. One thing is clear: The shale gas revolution is still in its infancy, with plenty of growing pains ahead.

Further reading

R. D. Vidic, S. L. Brantley, J. M. Vandenbossche, D. Yoxtheimer, J. D. Abad, Impact of shale gas development on regional water quality. Science 340, 1235009 (2013).

W. L. Ellsworth. Injection-induced earthquakes. Science 341, 1225942 (2013).

R. J. Conrado, R. Gonzalez, Envisioning the bioconversion of methane to liquid fuels. Science 343, 621–623 (2014).

A. R. Brandt et al., Methane leaks from North American natural gas systems. Science 343, 733–735 (2014).

B. G. Hashiguchi et al., Main-group compounds selectively oxidize mixtures of methane, ethane, and propane to alcohol esters. Science 343, 1232–1237 (2014).

X. Guo et al., Direct, nonoxidative conversion of methane to ethylene, aromatics, and hydrogen. Science 344, 616–619 (2014).

D. A. Stolper et al., Formation temperatures of thermogenic and biogenic methane. Science 344, 1500–1503 (2014).

Economy, Energy & Environment

E3 Sustainability in the State of West Virginia

From WV Department of Environmental Protection

Date: October 18, 2013

E3 West Virginia (Economy, Energy and Environment in West Virginia) conducted a Charter Signing Ceremony at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, October 22, at the state Department of Environmental Protection headquarters in Charleston.

E3 West Virginia, formed in 2010, is a collaboration of industries, local governments and state and federal resources geared toward helping the state’s industrial and community sectors thrive in a new era focused on sustainability. E3 West Virginia partners work together to promote sustainable environmental and energy practices and economic growth throughout West Virginia.

E3 West Virginia accomplishes its goals through investing in local communities, addressing energy and sustainability challenges, providing technical training and conducting energy and environmental assessments. Since 2010, E3 West Virginia has helped fund 56 industrial facility assessments statewide and 22 local government assessments, resulting in a potential savings of $3.6 million.

E3 West Virginia partners include Appalachian Power; Bridgemont Community and Technical College; Industries of the Future – West Virginia; National Pollution Prevention Roundtable; Natural Capital Investment Fund; Polymer Alliance Zone of West Virginia; U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Small Business Administration; West Virginia Association of Counties; West Virginia Community Development Hub; West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection; West Virginia Department of Commerce; West Virginia Manufacturers Association; West Virginia Manufacturing Extension Partnership; West Virginia Municipal League; and West Virginia University Industrial Assessment Center.

The Energy Alternatives: Extreme Petroleum III

By S. Thomas Bond, Lewis County, WV

PART VII

We will consider hypothetical possibilities here, then shale drilling and finally have some concluding remarks about the overall long-range situation with regard to petroleum.

First, methane clathrates which are also called methane hydrates. Vast amounts of clathrates exist, they are both a hazard of global warming and a possible source of methane (natural gas). There are several of these “cage compounds.” They aren’t really compounds in the sense that all atoms are bound together by chemical bonds, but rather are “cages” of water molecules surrounding methane, which acts as a template. They form at low temperatures, just above freezing, and under pressure. The most common one has 4 methane molecules trapped in 23 water molecules.

They are found in nature in Arctic soil, on the sea bed and in sediments below. They are also in fresh water ponds, lakes and streams. A great worry is that warming of the Arctic could decompose a large amount of the clathrates in the environment there, and speed up the process of global warming, since methane is about 20-25 times as bad about retaining the reflected heat from the sun as carbon dioxide.

Potentially, they could be harvested by recovery from say, the sea bed. A Japanese firm is working on a technology to do that.

PART VIII

Making ethanol for fuel from corn is ridiculous. The EROEI is in the vicinity of 1:1, since removal of water from the ferment is energy intensive. Ethanol causes difficulty and rapid aging with engines, particularly in a marine environment. It has less energy content than petroleum, so it is little more than a diluent. It could better be used as food.

Using sugar cane and fermenting it to ethanol is somewhat better, with significantly higher EROEI. But again, it is competing with food; and with a growing population, that is probably the better use. Both corn and cane require fertilizer for good yield, so they compete with food in that way, too.

Burning fire wood is a natural where it is available. It is relatively cheap, it involves little input fuel except for transportation, but much hard labor. Getting the wood really dry, and use of advanced stoves improves the heat produced and reduces the pollution. EROEI is about 30:1, on the average.

PART IX

Most of the readers of this article will be familiar with natural gas from shale drilling. They know that it is investment driven; that is, the big money is made from selling investments and financing, while actual production is the poor cousin.

This results in a huge advertising effort, endless lobbying and influencing of political candidates to get favorable legislation along with a minimum of enforcement. It involves aggressive legal action against opponents, rigid company and industry organization with frequent changes of party line. Subcontractors love the generous cash flow. Ultimately the program results in tough treatment of every one they come in contact with, including labor, landowners and neighbors.

The reader knows about the shale gas economic bubble, which has attracted investment from all over the world. There are big deals, frequent changes in estimates of available gas, and low recovery of the resource — leaving 90% in the ground. He/she knows about the rapid decline of shale gas wells, where most production is in two years with the end of economic utility in seven or eight years.

This means constant drilling is necessary to maintain production. The reader knows about technological problems with the method, such things as spoiling aquifers, surface pollution, air pollution and how these are ignored by regulatory agencies, but are visible to scientists. And everyone knows about the 200 or more organizations trying to get reasonable regulation or a moratorium.

So there isn’t much the author can say that is new. Perhaps you don’t know the reported ERORI is about 30:1. But, again, maybe that is a calculation by the industry that neglects such things as road repairs, personal trips by workers and supervisors (more than a good job at home), laying pipelines and a lifetime of checking them, compressor stations and who knows what else that distinguishes the industry.

PART X

The point of this article is to point out the risks and investments and costs needed to get what could be called “the hard stuff,” a name for what’s around when the “easy stuff” is gone; sometimes it is said the “the low-hanging fruit” is collected easily.

The time has come to invest more thought in what we are doing. Basically, the extraction tracks described above are enabled by the dispersed nature of big business. Tradition, along with previous investment in materials and skills guide doing the same things again and again. These tracks involve continuation of the past, not change suitable for the future.

It is time to be working on technology for the future. It is time to get money to those who are thinking about something different. Of course there will be mistakes in the near term by choosing an innovative path. But an innovative path is the only way out of the woods.

It is absolutely clear where we are going, taking bigger and bigger risks and destroying more and more of the earth’s surface so it does not produce environmental benefits that we have taken for granted in the past. We are on a straight and wide path to disaster.

The problem is how to get this across to the general public when the short term profit comes from a head long plunge to doom.

THE END

A national poll conducted by the nonprofit think tank Civil Society Institute shows nearly half of Americans are aware of the  hydrofracking issue and more than two out of three (69 precent) who are aware are concerned about the potential threat to clean drinking water.  From the CSI website: Nearly three out of five (72 percent) Americans say that they would tell their Member of Congress, governor or state lawmaker the following: “When it comes to energy production that requires large amounts of water or where water quality is in jeopardy as a result of the energy production, my vote would be for coming down on the side of the public’s health and the environment. We should favor cleaner energy sources that use the least water and involve the lowest possible risk to the public and environment.” Only about one in five (21 percent) would say the following: “When it comes to energy production that requires large amounts of water or where water quality is in jeopardy as a result of the energy production, my view is that energy production priorities have to come first. There is always going to be some risk involved when it comes to energy production. We have to accept that there are going to be tradeoffs when it comes to the public’s health and the environment.” Clean water is favored over energy production by Republicans (62 percent), Independents (80 percent), and Democrats (82 percent).  Poll highlights report.