Every effort has been made at AT to keep politics out of the discussion. That will continue as much as possible in the future. In fact, with all the chaos going on in DC, I’ve taken a pause on issues I would normally have posted in an effort to stay neutral prior to the election.

At this time however …

As most know, West Virginia Congressional representation was reduced from 3 to 2. The portion of the state I live in lost it’s Representative and, while I don’t like the reduction in numbers, I wasn’t all that upset to lose the Representative we had.

In the recent election, the new guy, Alex Mooney was chosen to take over the top half of the state. I was OK with that. Now we learn that he has chosen to begin his campaign to replace Senator Joe Manchin in the 2024 election.

I don’t mind that Mooney wants to move up in the world. But I have to wonder if he had this move in mind when he chose to run for the current seat, which he won’t even fill until January. If that is the case, perhaps he should have run out the clock on his current assignment, announced his campaign plan for Senate and put all effort to unseating Manchin in 2024 instead of running again for Congress.

For the sake of this discussion, I’ll give Representative Mooney the benefit of the doubt and assume he really did just wake up a day or so after the recent election and decide on the Senate run. So, in that scenario, why should his decision to run for Senate bug me a little?

One of the reasons I didn’t mind that my current Representative was removed from his post was his vote to permit spending of money we didn’t have. There’s a lot of that going around in Washington and it has to stop. Anyone who’s had the pleasure of witnessing or actually “sloppin’ the hogs” may share my image of Politicians and Bureaucrats running to the trough when the Treasury dumps the “slop.” In this case, of course, the slop is our hard earned taxpayer dollars.

Looking ahead to the the new Republican majority in the House, a great investment of time will be required of Representatives to curtail an out of control spending spree. That assumes, and you know what “assume” means, that the new majority is sincere in their claim to not abuse Taxpayers and right the ship. For the most recent history, it seems the addiction to spend other people’s money has been far stronger than the promises made when seeking our vote. But we’ll see!

So, even before my new Representative begins service to his new constituency, he is already planning to dilute the 120% effort required to make changes in Congress by starting a campaign to remove himself from his current job. Honestly, if Mooney had stated his Senate run during the primary election some months ago, I likely would have stayed with my current Representative McKinley and considered his vote to spend a one-off. My mistake!

Don’t get me wrong. Joe Manchin needs a kick in the pants. He’s played Charlie Brown to Schumer’s Lucy too many times. He was a great governor and a nice guy. In my view, as a Senator, unreliable … perhaps naive. With the new shift in power in the Senate, his role as a persuasive Senator may well diminish, especially if the Democrats pick up Georgia. He may find it necessary to move away from his lifetime party in order to protect West Virginia’s workers and economy from the destructive energy path this Administration is on, supported by the likes of Schumer and company.

Senator Manchin will likely not have an easy run in 2024. If he can’t alter his course, perhaps Mooney, or another yet to be announced candidate will gain enough popularity to unseat him. There’s a lot of time and a lot of options to play out.

In the meantime, I want a full time Congressional Representative to take up the fight for issues such as energy, better utilization of our tax dollars, runaway crime, the border and so on and so on. I hope Representative Mooney will not let his future get in the way of our present.

Plus, it’s about time we stop “sloppin’ the hogs!

(Every effort is made to be accurate. Any corrections or suggestions should be made in the comment section.)

Posted in Washington Politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Wind And Solar Fantasy

Interesting read from Mark P. Mills, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute – Transition to Nowhere … California’s switch to a primarily solar and wind-powered grid is a dead end.

It seems recently “California governor Gavin Newsom issued emergency orders to procure more natural gas-fired electrical capacity to avoid blackouts. And in a possible sign of more such moves to come, earlier in the summer, California’s electric grid operator “stole” electricity that Arizona utilities had purchased and that was in transit from Oregon.

Posted in industrial wind poor performance, Rare Earth Elements, Renewable energy debate, Solar Energy, US energy policy | Leave a comment

Fossil For Me, Decarb for Thee

From the GWPF: “China uses the climate agenda both as a way to strengthen its economy and as a weapon for weakening other countries. It now monopolises the global wind and solar industries, although its own renewable energy infrastructure, as everywhere, is unreliable (and therefore requires thermal generation backup), costly, and subject to high rates of curtailment. But its domestic renewables sites serve as effective demonstration projects for tours by Western environmentalists, who then lobby their governments to buy these expensive and unreliable forms of energy. When they do, it gives China two wins for the West’s two losses.”

Full PDF at this link.

Posted in China, Climate Change, fossil fuels, Global Warming | Leave a comment

We’re Absolutely Certain The Science Is Sorta Settled

h/t – WUWT

Noted Harvard Science Historian Naomi Oreskes suggested that since the science is settled the scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Working Group 1 (WG1)—the ones tasked with assessing the physical science basis of climate change—should “declare their job done.”

Hilarity ensues as the “Science Settlers” begin to counter noting that current-generation climate models are crude representations of the complex dynamical system that is our climate.

Sorta like: The models we use to absolutely predict that the world is ending really soon actually suck a bit, so we need a lot more money and time to kinda better settle the settled science. In the meantime of course, it’s certainly OK to purchase that $11.75 million waterfront mansion.

Like always, pull the money and out pops the truth.

Read more here.

Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming | Leave a comment

Climate Anxiety

A recent article at Euronews titled: Climate anxiety as global study reveals three-in-four young people think ‘the future is frightening’ should be frightening to all, regardless of your position on the extent to which a warming planet will lead to destruction of the earth or not, and at what level should we should fight or adapt.

First, to the study:

Six universities and the Climate Psychiatry Alliance recently polled some 10,000 16 to 25-year-olds from the United Kingdom, Finland, Portugal, Brazil, France, Australia, the United States, India, Nigeria and the Philippines.

  • 58 per cent said their government was “betraying me and/or future generations”
  • 64 per cent said their government was not doing enough to avoid environmental disaster
  • 59 per cent said they were “very” or “extremely” worried about climate change
  • more than half of all participants reported feeling “anger”, “fear” and “shame”
  • 56 per cent agreed with the statement “humanity is doomed”
  • 55 per cent, felt they would have fewer opportunities than their parents
  • four out of 10 said the issue made them hesitant to have children

What I found interesting was the conclusion of one of the lead authors that “this study paints a horrific picture of widespread climate anxiety in our children and young people” and “it suggests for the first time that high levels of psychological distress in youth is linked to government inaction.”

First, I don’t fault these young folks for their concerns. I believe their fears are real to them. Most are sincere in their wish to have someone take whatever drastic action necessary to save us all from doom. On the one hand, they’ve been told it is already “too late” and on the other to just support politician’s efforts to throw trillions at this monster and we’ll be ok. I know, that sounds about as crazy as someone claiming imminent sea level rise and buying a multi-million dollar beach front property with the mansion sitting at like 3 feet above sea level. No serious person would do that, right? These youngsters are likely too afraid to take that leap even if they have a few million to spare.

But again, we have folks claiming that it’s already too late to save a planet with only 10-12 years left before we all die … unless, of course … we taxpayers hand politicians trillions to spend on projects which have no direct bearing on the issue and, by their own schedule, will not be in place until long after the planet death spiral destroys us. Typical of DC, their cost spread analysis even allows for spending beyond the end of times. Exactly how does that work?

Our youth deserve better!

There are plenty of opinions available to take you to whatever level of panic you wish. And you probably sense that I have little faith in politicians and the twitter mob as guides, and I don’t reach out to celebrities or ball players for scientific analysis of complicated issues. In recent years I’ve actually lost confidence in agencies, climate modelers and some scientists who claim that “the science is settled.” That some of these folks think anyone who won’t share their level of concern should be placed in jail is stunning. To me, the fact that others must be coerced rather than convinced suggests that your position is a tad weak.

But who cares what I think? You certainly shouldn’t, I’m not a scientist. But then you also might want to ignore other non scientists from both the extreme “doomsday” and the “everything is fine” fringes and instead look to, without bias, all the data driven information you can find from all technically competent science sources. I know that is an unpopular view but, I think, necessary. You will likely find the current warming planet phenomenon is pretty complicated and placing the responsibility for corrective actions in the hands of governments might not be the best solution.

It seems to me that if you really want an untarnished view of the science and possible solutions, you would first have to remove the profit and power motives, which quickly eliminates most of our “ruling class.”

Politicians, except mine of course, are interesting creatures with the ability to come out strongly against a problem of their own creation and provide a plan to remedy the crisis, for just a few additional tax-payer dollars and another term in office. They are supported by huge lobbies with ready cash for the campaign coffers and a bureaucracy often leading the latest political buzz in order to guide policy and cement their tenure.

One need only look to Europe, which we’ve displayed in previous posts, to see the results stemming from the misguided policies intended to send a “green” Freddy Kilowatt racing down the electric lines to citizens. These very citizens who have been driven to accept these policies and, insult to injury, pay for with their taxes, are now experiencing the predicted rash of brown outs and high electricity costs. Dangerous shortages of reliable fuels necessary to keep light and heat on in the upcoming winter have exposed the failure of renewables, which have proven inadequate.

Many scientists who disagree to the level of Climate Change forcasted find common ground with James Hansen’s push for nuclear energy. The man who is arguably the driving force behind “global warming” action for decades, was recently attacked by the acolytes of the very belief in rising temperatures he promoted. All it took was for Mr. Hansen to drift outside the bounds of the climate change lane he largely created by simply stating the obvious – the quickest and most effective counter to CO2 emissions was to properly fund research and development of safe “fast reactors” and new forms of nuclear power.

It’s possible this evolution might already be a reality had President Clinton not put the kibosh on development in the mid 1990s. Interesting that part of the reasoning was that fossil fuels were cheap and plentiful and the cost of then nuclear fuel Uranium was dropping so why go to a potential safer electricity generator. But I suspect that decision has been largely forgotten and now the same gang is helping to hype up the youngsters to call upon government again to save them. In 1988 Hansen, several years prior to the Clinton decision, testified before congress helping to introduce the problem of rising greenhouse gas emissions to the American public.

Perhaps I’m being too cynical in seeing that the fear expressed by our youth is being hijacked by those increasing the power and wealth of government institutions and their rent seeking profiteers. Rather than a allowing our youth to realize that technology is available which, with removal of bureaucratic stumbling blocks and proper investment led by private investment rather than taxpayer $$$, solutions to their fears exist. I wonder how many have been provided this assessment of nuclear energy from the Department of Energy – 3 Reasons Why Nuclear is Clean and Sustainable?

Oh, and if you think the education system everywhere is still promoting the “question everything” manta of science to counter the current “science is settled,” I’ve got a bridge … but that’s for another post.

Politicians are justifiably critical of the negative influence social media has on our youngsters with all the bullying and tearing down of self esteem leading to anxiety among the young. Perhaps those who take to the fringe of climate action should consider looking in a mirror, for the die-in-10 years anxiety they create among the young sampled in this study, is equally bad emotionally and, perhaps even deadly.

Posted in Climate Change, Energy Crisis, Europe, Global Warming, Great Britain, Nuclear Energy | Leave a comment

India and China – Coal is King

Vijay Jayaraj: Coal’s future lies in Asia

It is well understood that India and China together constitute the biggest coal-consuming block and are also the world’s biggest greenhouse-gas emitters. As part of the Paris climate pact, both India and China were expected to progressively reduce their dependency on coal. However, recent investments and energy strategies laid out in these countries portray a different picture.

India for example explicitly stated this year that coal will play a significant role in its ambition to become a $5 trillion economy. That is according to India’s home minister, a powerful figure in the government’s decision-making process. To realize this vision, India has acted to increase production, improve coal technology, and modernize its coal plants.

Full article here: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/09/coals_future_lies_in_asia.html

Posted in China, Coal, India | Leave a comment

Europe Energy Crisis To Spread

Bloomberg: “This winter, the world will be fighting over something that’s invisible, yet rarely so vital—and in alarmingly shorter supply.

Nations are more reliant than ever on natural gas to heat homes and power industries amid efforts to quit coal and increase the use of cleaner energy sources. But there isn’t enough gas to fuel the post-pandemic recovery and refill depleted stocks before the cold months. Countries are trying to outbid one another for supplies as exporters such as Russia move to keep more natural gas home. The crunch will get a lot worse when temperatures drop.

Read on here: Europe’s Energy Crisis Is Coming for the Rest of the World, Too

Posted in Energy Crisis, Europe, natural gas | Leave a comment

China being China

First this from the David Rose in the UK’s Daily Mail:

Beijing’s dirtiest secret: With 1,000 coal-fired power stations (and climbing) China’s energy pollution mocks the world’s bid to combat climate change – as series of Mail exposes reveals.

(with a hat tip to https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/)

And then there’s this:


Infographic: China Beats U.S., Europe in Combined Greenhouse Gases

5-6 minutes

Climate change

The U.S. and Europe have steadily reduced harmful greenhouse gas emissions over the last two decades, as a boost in renewable energy and a decline in dirty fossil fuel production have contributed to a sustainable downward trend. However, another major world player, China, has trended in the opposite direction, increasing greenhouse gas emissions to a point that is now higher than both the U.S. and Europe’s greenhouse gas contributions combined.

In data collected by BP, China’s carbon dioxide emissions from burning fuel rose roughly 200 percent between 2000-2018 to roughly 9.4 billion tons. The country has now surpassed the combined emissions from the U.S. and Europe, which recorded nearly a 50-year low of 8.6 billion tons in 2018.

Bloomberg reports that China is considering a move to accelerate its emphasis on renewable energies in an effort to cut back as the current world’s largest polluter. China still leads the world in new coal plant production, but new proposals focused on clean energy would aim to slow down coal production over the next five years.

Renewable energy companies in China are taking the news well, with clean energy stocks soaring in recent days on speculation that Beijing’s National Energy Administration is serious about investing heavily in a renewable energy future.

Infographic: China Beats U.S., Europe in Combined Greenhouse Gases | Statista


This chart shows the amount of greenhouse gases produced by China and the U.S./Europe (in billion tons).

(Statista content ends)

Our leaders here in the US would do well to face the fact that China has no real interest in complying with any of the climate agreements as long as the free world economies are being damaged and they go unchallenged.

Original Source Links:



Posted in China, Great Britain | Leave a comment

Great Britain’s Winter Fears

Way back in 2011, we linked to an article by Bryan Preston titled “UK electricity CEO: Get used to not having any electricity, suckas!” Mr. Preston said at the time, “Steve Hollliday is the UK’s power czar, basically. He’s the CEO of National Grid. He is predicting that, because the UK is moving to more wind-generated electricity to meet government emissions targets, residents will end up with less access to electricity.” Mr. Preston’s article also noted that, “Holliday has for several years been predicting that blackouts could become a feature of power systems that replace reliable coal plants with wind turbines in order to meet greenhouse gas targets. Wind-based power systems are necessary to meet the government’s targets, he has explained, but they will require lifestyle changes.”

Wow! Who would have thought the required lifestyle changes predicted a decade ago would have included “rising prices (which) could mean another 500,000 households in the UK could fall into fuel poverty, Adam Scorer, chief executive of National Energy Action has said.”

A perfect storm for Great Britain for sure, with many small energy companies going belly up and supply from Russia has dried up recently, and demand is high in Asia, which is putting pressure on international markets. In the UK, several gas platforms in the North Sea have closed to perform maintenance that was paused during the pandemic. Cables that import electricity from France were also damaged last week, and September has not been a very windy month, meaning there has been less wind-power production, creating a need for more gas to produce electricity instead.

Matt Ridley notes in his must read Daily Mail commentary, “When David Cameron’s energy bill was being discussed in Parliament in 2013, the word on everybody’s lips was ‘trilemma’: how to ensure that energy was affordable, reliable and low-carbon. Everybody knew then that renewables were unreliable: that wind power fully works less than one-third of the time, and that solar power is unavailable at night (of course) and less efficient on cloudy winter days.

Yet whenever we troublemakers raised this issue, we were told not to worry – it would resolve itself, they said, either because wind is usually blowing somewhere, or through the development of electricity storage in giant battery farms.

This was plain wrong. The task of balancing the grid and maintaining electrical frequency has grown dangerously the more reliant on wind power we have become – as demonstrated by the widespread power cuts of August 2019. The cost of grid management has soared to nearly £2billion a year in the last two decades.”

Samantha Dravis writes in The Hill that, “It seems that no matter how many examples are pointed out about the dangers of over-reliance on renewables, policymakers continue to press on toward the same dangerous path of completely banning fossil fuels. The result won’t be lower emissions at the end of the day when natural gas and coal are needed to cover wind’s shortfalls — but there very well could be energy price increases like America has never seen before.” Her commentary is titled “Europe’s energy crisis is a warning for America” and you might want to give the full article a read.

CNBC notes that in addition to concerns about electricity, food and gasoline shortages have prompted warnings of “a really difficult winter” for the country. A significant lack of truck drivers has meant deliveries of fuel and goods have fallen short. The article provides and excellent summary of issues facing the UK and is well worth a read.

Source Links:







Posted in Great Britain, industrial wind failure, natural gas, Solar Energy, US energy policy | Leave a comment

Course Correction

Welcome Back!

In the past, many of the posts on this blog focused on the expansion of industrial wind in West Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania. We knew stopping IW’s destruction would be an uphill battle – literally – but we tried. The ever excellent and tireless SOAR (Save Our Allegheny Ridges) has been keeping that fight alive all along. Please support their efforts as you can.

After several years of grumbling, this blog took a pause during which we found we had to add a dash (-) to our web address due to a mix up. Luckily, the history rode along with the change and it seems you’ve found us anyway.

To begin, seeing replacement turbines going up on the Allegheny Front at Pinnacle and new ones being set at Black Rock to further fortify the migratory flyway blockade across the Alleghenies, it is tempting to rant as in the old days. But much of that discussion is included in the history here and specific topics can be searched as well, so no sense beating that dead bat.

Don’t get me wrong, I still firmly believe that grid-connected industrial wind is simply worthless as a reliable energy source. If you want one in your yard or at your farm, Excellent! I take exception when we pretend that connecting a string of turbines to the grid will magically eliminate or greatly reduce the consumption of natural gas, coal or even nuclear.

The problem with industrial wind remains that it cannot be depended on to meet demand. On the other hand, nuclear plants, natural gas combined-cycle plants and coal plants provide dispatchable baseload service.

Sadly, as a major component of the Renewable Energy Religion, industrial wind is a protected species, unlike the Eagles the FWS permits the turbines to slice. In fact, “Wind facility operators can obtain a permit from the Service for the “take” of eagles that may occur while operating their facility.” But I dare you to show up at the FWS office with an Eagle feather in your cap! And heck, if you think abut it, you’re producing about as much “dispatchable” electricity as the turbines!

It is my hope that once folks recognize that wind and solar are not now, or ever will be the primary source of energy, our vast resources will be directed to the development of true innovation.

I recognize that the life blood of solar and wind is Climate Change and replacing fossil fuels. Even James Hansen, clearly a leading voice for decades combating Global Warming, recognizes that renewables never make that transition happen and suggests nuclear energy is our best hope for lowering CO2.

But the purpose of future posts is not to fight the Climate Change pro/con battle, but to point out the unintended consequences brought on by many ill conceived political policies and legislation intended to deal with Climate Change around the world in hopes that we don’t repeat them.

If you must know, my position on Global Warming/Climate Change aligns closely to that of Bjorn Lomborg. I find him to be a rational thinker backing his policy recommendations and assessments with facts, and peeling away the warm and fuzzy promises made by politicians as they toss taxpayer money in any direction in an effort to convince us they are saving the world and will do so, for sure, if only taxpayers would be willing to cough up tens of trillions of cash. C’mon, chip in a little!

This is the direction I hope to take, recognizing that local “stuff” impacting our region will pop up now and then. There are many resources available and I hope to point you to a few that you might also find interesting.

Your comments and suggestions are welcome. I also ask that you advise of any corrections or omissions found in posts.

Posted in AT Policy, Nuclear Energy, Renewable energy debate, Unintended Consequences | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment