Most Swedes support nuclear energy

Methane Hydrate CO2 Sequestration uses carbon capture and nitrogen injection to swap gases in seafloor hydrates along the Gulf of Mexico, releasing methane for electricity while storing CO2, according to new simulation research.

Key Points

A method injecting CO2 and nitrogen into hydrates to store CO2 while releasing methane for power.

✅ Nitrogen aids CO2-methane swap in hydrate cages, speeding sequestration

✅ Gulf Coast proximity to emitters lowers transport and power costs

✅ Revenue from methane electricity could offset carbon capture

The world is quickly realizing it may need to actively pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to stave off the ill effects of climate change. Scientists and engineers have proposed various carbon capture techniques, but most would be extremely expensive—without generating any revenue. No one wants to foot the bill.

One method explored in the past decade might now be a step closer to becoming practical, as a result of a new computer simulation study. The process would involve pumping airborne CO2 down into methane hydrates—large deposits of icy water and methane right under the seafloor, beneath water 500 to 1,000 feet deep—where the gas would be permanently stored, or sequestered. The incoming CO2 would push out the methane, which would be piped to the surface and burned to generate electricity, whether sold locally or via exporters like Hydro-Que9bec to help defray costs, to power the sequestration operation or to bring in revenue to pay for it.

Many methane hydrate deposits exist along the Gulf of Mexico shore and other coastlines. Large power plants and industrial facilities that emit CO2 also line the Gulf Coast, where EPA power plant rules could shape deployment, so one option would be to capture the gas directly from nearby smokestacks, keeping it out of the atmosphere to begin with. And the plants and industries themselves could provide a ready market for the electricity generated.

A methane hydrate is a deposit of frozen, latticelike water molecules. The loose network has many empty, molecular-size pores, or “cages,” that can trap methane molecules rising through cracks in the rock below. The computer simulation shows that pushing out the methane with CO2 is greatly enhanced if a high concentration of nitrogen is also injected, and that the gas swap is a two-step process. (Nitrogen is readily available anywhere, because it makes up 78 percent of the earth’s atmosphere.) In one step the nitrogen enters the cages; this destabilizes the trapped methane, which escapes the cages. In a separate step, the nitrogen helps CO2 crystallize in the emptied cages. The disturbed system “tries to reach a new equilibrium; the balance goes to more CO2 and less methane,” says Kris Darnell, who led the study, published June 27 in the journal Water Resources Research. Darnell recently joined the petroleum engineering software company Novi Labs as a data scientist, after receiving his Ph.D. in geoscience from the University of Texas, where the study was done.

A group of labs, universities and companies had tested the technique in a limited feasibility trial in 2012 on Alaska’s North Slope, where methane hydrates form in sandstone under deep permafrost. They sent CO2 and nitrogen down a pipe into the hydrate. Some CO2 ended up being stored, and some methane was released up the same pipe. That is as far as the experiment was intended to go. “It’s good that Kris [Darnell] could make headway” from that experience, says Ray Boswell at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, who was one of the Alaska experiment leaders but was not involved in the new study. The new simulation also showed that the swap of CO2 for methane is likely to be much more extensive—and to happen quicker—if CO2 enters at one end of a hydrate deposit and methane is collected at a distant end.

The technique is somewhat similar in concept to one investigated in the early 2010s by Steven Bryant and others at the University of Texas. In addition to numerous methane hydrate deposits, the Gulf Coast has large pools of hot, salty brine in sedimentary rock under the coastline. In this system, pumps would send CO2 down into one end of a deposit, which would force brine into a pipe that is placed at the other end and leads back to the surface. There the hot brine would flow through a heat exchanger, where heat could be extracted and used for industrial processes or to generate electricity, supporting projects such as electrified LNG in some markets. The upwelling brine also contains some methane that could be siphoned off and burned. The CO2 dissolves into the underground brine, becomes dense and sinks further belowground, where it theoretically remains.

Either system faces big practical challenges, and building shared CO2 storage hubs to aggregate captured gas is still evolving. One is creating a concentrated flow of CO2; the gas makes up only .04 percent of air, and roughly 10 percent of the smokestack emission from a typical power plant or industrial facility. If an efficient methane hydrate or brine system requires an input that is 90 percent CO2, for example, concentrating the gas will require an enormous amount of energy—making the process very expensive. “But if you only need a 50 percent concentration, that could be more attractive,” says Bryant, who is now a professor of chemical and petroleum engineering at the University of Calgary. “You have to reduce the [CO2] capture cost.”

Another major challenge for the methane hydrate approach is how to collect the freed methane, which could simply seep out of the deposit through numerous cracks and in all directions. “What kind of well [and pipe] structure would you use to grab it?” Bryant asks.

Given these realities, there is little economic incentive today to use methane hydrates for sequestering CO2. But as concentrations rise in the atmosphere and the planet warms further, and as calls for an electric planet intensify, systems that could capture the gas and also provide energy or revenue to run the process might become more viable than techniques that simply pull CO2 from the air and lock it away, offering nothing in return.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Mississauga Fuel Cell Electric Buses advance zero-emission public transit, leveraging hydrogen fuel cells, green hydrogen supply, rapid refueling, and extended range to cut GHGs, improve air quality, and modernize sustainable urban mobility.

Key Points

Hydrogen fuel cell buses power electric drivetrains for zero-emission service, long range, and quick refueling.

✅ Zero tailpipe emissions improve urban air quality

✅ Longer route range than battery-electric buses

✅ Hydrogen fueling is rapid, enabling high uptime

Mississauga, Ontario, is gearing up for a significant shift in its public transportation landscape with the introduction of fuel cell electric buses (FCEBs). This initiative marks a pivotal step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing the sustainability of public transport in the region. The city, known for its vibrant urban environment and bustling economy, is making strides to ensure that its transit system evolves in harmony with environmental goals.

The recent announcement highlights the commitment of Mississauga to embrace clean energy solutions. The integration of FCEBs is part of a broader strategy to modernize the transit fleet while tackling climate change. As cities around the world seek to reduce their carbon footprints, Mississauga’s initiative aligns with global trends toward greener urban transport, where projects like the TTC battery-electric buses demonstrate practical pathways.

What are Fuel Cell Electric Buses?

Fuel cell electric buses utilize hydrogen fuel cells to generate electricity, which powers the vehicle's electric motor. Unlike traditional buses that run on diesel or gasoline, FCEBs produce zero tailpipe emissions, making them an environmentally friendly alternative. The only byproducts of their operation are water and heat, significantly reducing air pollution in urban areas.

The technology behind FCEBs is becoming increasingly viable as hydrogen production becomes more sustainable. With the advancement of green hydrogen production methods, which use renewable energy sources to create hydrogen, and because some electricity in Canada still comes from fossil fuels, the environmental benefits of fuel cell technology are further amplified. Mississauga’s investment in these buses is not only a commitment to cleaner air but also a boost for innovative technology in the transportation sector.

Benefits for Mississauga

The introduction of FCEBs is poised to offer numerous benefits to the residents of Mississauga. Firstly, the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions aligns with the city’s climate action goals and complements Canada’s EV goals at the national level. By investing in cleaner public transit options, Mississauga is taking significant steps to improve air quality and combat climate change.

Moreover, FCEBs are known for their efficiency and longer range compared to battery electric buses, such as the Metro Vancouver fleet now operating across the region, commonly used in Canadian cities. This means they can operate longer routes without the need for frequent recharging, making them ideal for busy transit systems. The use of hydrogen fuel can also result in shorter fueling times compared to electric charging, enhancing operational efficiency.

In addition to environmental and operational advantages, the introduction of these buses presents economic opportunities. The deployment of FCEBs can create jobs in the local economy, from maintenance to hydrogen production facilities, similar to how St. Albert’s electric buses supported local capabilities. This aligns with broader trends of sustainable economic development that prioritize green jobs.

Challenges Ahead

While the potential benefits of FCEBs are clear, the transition to this technology is not without its challenges. One of the main hurdles is the establishment of a robust hydrogen infrastructure. To support the operation of fuel cell buses, Mississauga will need to invest in hydrogen production, storage, and fueling stations, much as Edmonton’s first electric bus required dedicated charging infrastructure. Collaboration with regional and provincial partners will be crucial to develop this infrastructure effectively.

Additionally, public acceptance and awareness of hydrogen technology will be essential. As with any new technology, there may be skepticism regarding safety and efficiency. Educational campaigns will be necessary to inform the public about the advantages of FCEBs and how they contribute to a more sustainable future, and recent TTC’s battery-electric rollout offers a useful reference for outreach efforts.

Looking Forward

As Mississauga embarks on this innovative journey, the introduction of fuel cell electric buses signifies a forward-thinking approach to public transportation. The city’s commitment to sustainability not only enhances its transit system but also sets a precedent for other municipalities to follow.

In conclusion, the shift towards fuel cell electric buses in Mississauga exemplifies a significant leap toward greener public transport. With ongoing efforts to tackle climate change and improve urban air quality, Mississauga is positioning itself as a leader in sustainable transit solutions. The future looks promising for both the city and its residents as they embrace cleaner, more efficient transportation options. As this initiative unfolds, it will be closely watched by other cities looking to implement similar sustainable practices in their own transit systems.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Clean Power Plan Rollback signals EPA's shift to inside-the-fence efficiency at coal plants, emphasizing heat-rate improvements over sector-wide decarbonization, renewables, natural gas switching, demand-side efficiency, and carbon capture under Clean Air Act constraints.

Key Points

A policy shift by the EPA to replace broad emissions rules with plant-level efficiency standards, limiting CO2 cuts.

✅ Inside-the-fence heat-rate improvements at coal units

✅ Potential CO2 cuts limited to about 6% per plant

✅ Alternatives: fuel switching, renewables, carbon capture

President Barack Obama’s signature plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electrical generation took years to develop and touched every aspect of power production and use, from smokestacks to home insulation.

The Trump administration is moving to scrap that plan and has signaled that any alternative it might adopt would take a much less expansive approach, possibly just telling utilities to operate their plants more efficiently.

That’s a strategy environmentalists say is almost certain to fall short of what’s needed.

The Trump administration is making "a wholesale retreat from EPA’s legal, scientific and moral obligation to address the threats of climate change," said former Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy, the architect of Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

President Donald Trump promised to rip up the initiative, echoing an end to the 'war on coal' message from his campaign, which mandated that states change their overall power mix, displacing coal-fired electricity with that from wind, solar and natural gas. The EPA is about to make it official, arguing the prior administration violated the Clean Air Act by requiring those broad changes to the electricity sector, according to a draft obtained by Bloomberg.

Possible Replacements

Later, the agency will also ask the public to weigh in on possible replacements. The administration will ask whether the EPA can or should develop a replacement rule -- and, if so, what actions can be mandated at individual power plants, though some policymakers favor a clean electricity standard to drive broader decarbonization.

Follow the Trump Administration’s Every Move

Such changes -- such as adding automation or replacing worn turbine seals -- would yield at most a 6 percent gain in efficiency, along with a corresponding fall in greenhouse gas emissions, according to earlier modeling by the Environmental Protection Agency and other analysts. That compares to the 32 percent drop in emissions by 2030 under Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

"In these existing plants, there’s only so many places to look for savings," said John Larsen, a director of the Rhodium Group, a research firm. "There’s only so many opportunities within a big spinning machine like that."

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt outlined such an "inside-the-fence-line" approach in 2014, later embodied in the Affordable Clean Energy rule that industry groups backed, when he served as Oklahoma’s attorney general. Under his blueprint, states would set emissions standards after a detailed unit-by-unit analysis, looking at what reductions are possible given "the engineering limits of each facility."

The EPA has not decided whether it will promulgate a new rule at all, though it has also proposed new pollution limits for coal and gas plants in separate actions. In a forthcoming advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA will ask "what inside-the-fence-line options are legal, feasible and appropriate," according to a document obtained by Bloomberg.

Increased efficiency at a coal plant -- known as heat-rate improvement -- translates into fewer carbon-dioxide emissions per unit of electric power generated.

Under Obama, the EPA envisioned utilities would make some straightforward efficiency improvements at coal-fired power plants as the first step to comply with the Clean Power Plan. But that was expected to coincide with bigger, broader changes -- such as using more cleaner-burning natural gas, adding more renewable power projects and simply encouraging customers to do a better job turning down their thermostats and turning off their lights.

Obama’s EPA didn’t ask utilities to wring every ounce of efficiency they could out of coal-fired power plants because they saw the other options as cheaper. A plant-specific approach "would be grossly insufficient to address the public health and environmental impacts from CO2 emissions," Obama’s EPA said.

That approach might yield modest emissions reductions and, in a perverse twist, might event have the opposite effect. If utilities make coal plants more efficient -- thereby driving down operating costs -- they also make them more competitive with natural gas and renewables, "so they might run more and pollute more," said Conrad Schneider, advocacy director for the Clean Air Task Force.  

In a competitive market, any improvement in emissions produced for each unit of energy could be overwhelmed by an increase in electrical output, and debates over changes to electricity pricing under Trump and Perry added further uncertainty.

"A very minor heat rate improvement program would very likely result in increased emissions," Schneider said. "It might be worse than nothing."

Power companies want to get as much electricity as possible from every pound of coal, so they already have an incentive to keep efficiency high, said Jeff Holmstead, a former assistant EPA administrator now at Bracewell LLP. But an EPA regulation known as “new source review” has discouraged some from making those changes, for fear of triggering other pollution-control requirements, he said.

"If EPA’s replacement rule allows companies to improve efficiency without triggering new source review, it would make a real difference in terms of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions," Holmstead said.

Modest Impact

A plant-specific approach doesn’t have to mean modest impact.

"If you’re thinking about what can be done at the power plants by themselves, you don’t stop at efficiency tune-ups," said David Doniger, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate and clean air program. "You look at things like switching to natural gas or installing carbon capture and storage."

Requirements that facilities use carbon capture technology or swap in natural gas for coal could actually come close to hitting the same goals as in Obama’s Clean Power Plan -- if not go even further, Schneider said. They just would cost more.

The benefit of the Clean Power Plan "is that it enabled states to create programs and enabled companies to find a reduction strategy that was the most efficient and made the most sense for their own content," said Kathryn Zyla, deputy director of the Georgetown Climate Center. "And that flexibility was really important for the states and companies."

Some utilities, including Houston-based Calpine Corp., PG&E Corp. and Dominion Resources Inc., backed the Obama-era approach. And they are still pushing the Trump administration to be creative now.

"The Clean Power Plan achieved a thoughtful, balanced approach that gave companies and states considerable flexibility on how best to pursue that goal," said Melissa Lavinson, vice president of federal affairs and policy for PG&E’s Pacific Gas and Electric utility. “We look forward to working with the administration to devise an alternative plan for decarbonizing the U.S. economy."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ukraine Nuclear Plant Ownership Proposal outlines U.S. management of Ukrainian reactors amid the Russia-Ukraine war, citing nuclear safety, energy security, and IAEA oversight; Kyiv rejects ownership transfer, especially regarding Zaporizhzhia under Russian control.

Key Points

U.S. control of Ukraine's nuclear plants for safety; Kyiv rejects transfer, citing sovereignty risks at Zaporizhzhia.

✅ U.S. proposal to manage Ukraine's reactors amid war

✅ Kyiv refuses ownership transfer; open to investment

✅ Zaporizhzhia under Russian control raises safety risks

In the midst of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed a controversial idea: Ukraine should give its nuclear power plants to the United States for safekeeping and management. This suggestion came during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wherein Trump expressed the belief that American ownership of these nuclear plants could offer them the best protection amid the ongoing war. But Kyiv, while open to foreign support, has firmly rejected the idea of transferring ownership, especially as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant remains under Russian occupation.

Ukraine’s nuclear energy infrastructure has always been a vital component of its power generation. Before the war, the country’s four nuclear plants supplied nearly half of its electricity. As Russia's military forces target Ukraine's energy infrastructure, including power plants and coal mines, international watchdogs like the IAEA have warned of nuclear risks as these nuclear facilities have become crucial to maintaining the nation’s energy stability. The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, has attracted international concern due to its size and the ongoing threat of a potential nuclear disaster.

Trump’s Proposal and Ukraine’s Response

Trump’s proposal of U.S. ownership came as a response to the ongoing threats posed by Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia plant. Trump argued that the U.S., with its expertise in running nuclear power plants, could safeguard these facilities from further damage and potential nuclear accidents. However, Zelenskyy quickly clarified that the discussion was only focused on the Zaporizhzhia plant, which is currently under Russian control. The Ukrainian president emphasized that Kyiv would not entertain the idea of permanently transferring ownership of its nuclear plants, even though they would welcome investment in their restoration and modernization, particularly after the war.

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant has been a focal point of geopolitical tensions since Russia's occupation in 2022. Despite being in "cold shutdown" to prevent further risk of explosions, the facility remains a major concern due to its potential to cause a nuclear disaster. Ukrainian officials, along with international observers, have raised alarm about the safety risks posed by the plant, including mines at Zaporizhzhia reported by UN watchdogs, which is situated in a war zone and under the control of Russian forces who are reportedly neglecting proper safety protocols.

The Fear of a Nuclear Provocation

Ukrainians have expressed concerns that Trump’s proposal could embolden Russia to escalate tensions further, even as a potential agreement on power-plant attacks has been discussed by some parties. Some fear that any attempt to reclaim the plant by Ukraine could trigger a Russian provocation, including a deliberate attack on the plant, which would have catastrophic consequences for both Ukraine and the broader region. The analogy is drawn with the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, which Ukraine accuses Russia of sabotaging, an act that severely disrupted water supplies to the Zaporizhzhia plant. Ukrainian military officials, including Ihor Romanenko, a former deputy head of Ukraine’s armed forces, warned that Trump’s suggestion might be an exploitation of Ukraine’s vulnerable position in the ongoing war.

Despite these fears, there are some voices within Ukraine, including former employees of the Zaporizhzhia plant, who believe that a deliberate attack by Russian forces is unlikely. They argue that the Russian military needs the plant in functioning condition for future negotiations, with Russia building new power lines to reactivate the site as part of that calculus, and any damage could reduce its value in such exchanges. However, the possibility of Russian negligence or mismanagement remains a significant risk.

The Strategic Role of Ukraine's Nuclear Plants

Ukraine's nuclear plants were a cornerstone of the country’s energy sector long before the conflict began. In recent years, as Ukraine lost access to coal resources in the Donbas region due to Russian occupation, nuclear power became even more vital, alongside a growing focus on wind power to improve resilience. The country’s reliance on these plants grew as Russia launched a sustained campaign to destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including attacks on nuclear power stations.

The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, holds strategic importance not only due to its size but also because of its location in southeastern Ukraine, an area that has been at the heart of the conflict. Despite being in Russian hands, the plant’s reactors have been safely shut down, reducing the immediate risk of a nuclear explosion. However, the plant’s future remains uncertain, as Russia’s long-term control over it could disrupt Ukraine’s energy security for years to come.

Wider Concerns About Aging Nuclear Infrastructure

Beyond the geopolitical tensions, there are broader concerns about the aging infrastructure of Ukraine's nuclear power plants. International watchdogs, including the environmentalist group Bankwatch, have criticized these facilities as “zombie reactors” due to their outdated designs and safety risks. Experts have called for Ukraine to decommission some of these reactors, fearing that they are increasingly unsafe, especially in the context of a war.

However, Ukrainian officials, including Petro Kotin, head of Energoatom (Ukraine's state-owned nuclear energy company), argue that these reactors are still functional and critical to Ukraine's energy needs. The ongoing conflict, however, complicates efforts to modernize and secure these facilities, which are increasingly vulnerable to both physical damage and potential nuclear hazards.

The Global Implications

Trump's suggestion to take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has raised significant concerns on the international stage. Some fear that such a move could set a dangerous precedent for nuclear security and sovereignty. Others see it as an opportunistic proposal that exploits Ukraine's wartime vulnerability.

While the future of Ukraine's nuclear plants remains uncertain, one thing is clear: these facilities are now at the center of a geopolitical struggle that could have far-reaching consequences for the energy security of Europe and the world. The safety of these plants and their role in Ukraine's energy future will remain a critical issue as the war continues and as Ukraine navigates its relations with both the U.S. and Russia, with the grid even having resumed electricity exports at times.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario EV Battery Storage ROI leverages V2B, V2G, two-way charging, demand response, and second-life batteries to monetize peak pricing, cut GHG emissions, and unlock up to $38,000 in lifetime value for commuters and buildings.

Key Points

The economic return from V2B/V2G two-way charging and second-life storage using EV batteries within Ontario's grid.

✅ Monetize peak pricing via workplace V2B discharging

✅ Earn up to $8,400 per EV over vehicle life

✅ Reduce gas generation and GHGs with demand response

The payback that usually comes to mind when people buy an electric vehicle is to drive an emissions-free, low-maintenance, better-performing mode of transportation.

On top of that, you can now add $38,000.

That, according to a new report from Ontario electric vehicle education and advocacy nonprofit, Plug‘n Drive, is the potential lifetime return for an electric car driven as a commuter vehicle while also being used as an electricity storage option amid an energy storage crunch in Ontario’s electricity system.

“EVs contain large batteries that store electric energy,” says the report. “Besides driving the car, [those] batteries have two other potentially useful applications: mobile storage via vehicle-to-grid while they are installed in the vehicle, and second-life storage after the vehicle batteries are retired.”

Pricing and demand differentials
The study, prepared by the research firm Strategic Policy Economics, modeled a two-stage scenario calculating the total benefits from both mobile and second-life storage when taking advantage of differences in daytime and nighttime electricity pricing and demand.

If done systematically and at scale, the combined benefits to EV owners, building operators and the electricity system in Ontario could reach $129 million per year by 2035, according to the report. Along with the financial gains, the province would also cut GHG emissions by up to 67.2 kilotons annually.

The math might sound complicated, but the concepts are simple. All it requires is for drivers to charge their batteries with low-cost electricity overnight at home, then plug them into two-way EV charging stations at work and discharge their stored electricity for use by the building by day when buying power from the grid is more expensive.

“Workplace buildings could avoid high daytime prices by purchasing electricity from EVs parked onsite and enjoy savings as a result,” says the report.

Based on average commuting distances, EVs in this scenario could make half their storage capacity available for discharge. Drivers would be paid out of the building’s savings, effectively selling electricity back to the grid and earning up to $8,400 over the life of their vehicle.

According to the report, Ontario could have as many as 18,555 vehicles participating in mobile storage by 2030. At this level, the daily electricity demand would be reduced by 565 MWh. This, in turn, would reduce demand for natural gas-fired electricity generation, a fossil-fuel electricity source, avoiding the expense of gas purchases while reducing GHG emissions.

The second-life storage opportunity begins when the vehicle lifespan ends. “EV batteries will still have over 80% of their storage capacity after being driven for 13 years and providing mobile storage,” the report states. “Those-second life batteries could provide a low-cost energy storage solution for the electricity grid and enhance grid stability over time.”

Some of the savings could be shared with EV owners in the form of a rebate worth up to 20 per cent of the batteries’ initial cost.

Call to action
The report concludes with a call to action for EV advocates to press policy makers and other stakeholders to take actions on building codes, the federal Clean Fuel Standard and other business models in order to maximize the benefits of using EV batteries for the electricity system in this way, even as growing adoption could challenge power grids in some regions.

“EVs are often approached as an environmental solution to climate change,” says Cara Clairman, Plug’n Drive president and CEO. “While this is true, there are significant economic opportunities that are often overlooked.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Duke Energy Smart Meters enable remote meter reading, daily energy usage data, and two-way outage detection via AMI, with encrypted data, faster restoration, and remote connect/disconnect for Indiana customers in Howard County.

Key Points

Advanced meters that support remote readings, daily usage insights, two-way outage detection, and secure, encrypted data.

✅ Daily energy usage available online the next day

✅ Two-way communications speed outage detection and restoration

✅ Remote connect/disconnect; manual reads optional with opt-out fee

Say goodbye to your neighborhood meter reader. Say hello to your new smart meter.

Over the next three months, Duke Energy will install nearly 43,000 new high-tech electric meters for Howard County customers that will allow the utility company to remotely access meters via the digital grid instead of sending out employees to a homeowner's property for walk-by readings.

That means there's no need to estimate bills when meters can't be easily accessed, such as during severe weather or winter storms.

Other counties serviced by Duke Energy slated to receive the meters include Miami, Tipton, Cass and Carroll counties.

Angeline Protogere, Duke Energy's lead communication consultant, said besides saving the company money and manpower, the new smart meters come with a host of benefits for customers enabled by smart grid solutions today.

The meters are capable of capturing daily energy usage data, which is available online the next day. Having this information available on a daily basis can help customers make smarter energy decisions and support customer analytics that avoid billing surprises at the end of the month, she said.

"The real advantage is for the consumer, because they can track their energy usage and adjust their usage before the bills come," Protogere said.

When it comes to power outages, the meters are capable of two-way communications. That allows the company to know more about an outage through synchrophasor monitoring, which can help speed up restoration. However, customers will still need to notify Duke Energy if their power goes out.

If a customer is moving, they don't have to wait for a Duke Energy representative to come to the premises to connect or disconnect the energy service because requests can be performed remotely.

Protogere said when it comes to installing the meters, the changeover takes less than 5 minutes to complete. Customers should receive advance notices from the company, but the technician also will knock on the door to let the customer know they are there.

If no one is available and the meter is safely accessible, the technician will go ahead and change out the meter, Protogere said. There will be a momentary outage between the time the old meter is removed and the new meter is installed.

Kokomo and the surrounding areas are one of the last parts of the state to receive Duke Energy's new, high-tech meters, which are commonly used by other utility companies and in smart city initiatives across the U.S.

Protogere said statewide, the company started installing smart meters in August 2016 as utilities deploy digital transformer stations to modernize the grid. To date, they have installed 694,000 of the 854,000 they have planned for the state.

The company says the information stored and transmitted on the smart meters is safe, protected and confidential. Duke Energy said on its website that it does not share data with anyone without customers' authorization. The information coming from the meters is encrypted and protected from the moment it is collected until the moment it is purged, the company said.

Digital smart meter technology uses radio frequency bands that have been used for many years in devices such as baby monitors and medical monitors. The radio signals are far below the levels emitted by common household appliances and electronics, including cellphones and microwave ovens.

According to the World Health Organization, FCC, U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Electric Power Research Institute, no adverse health effects have been shown to occur from the radio frequency signals produced by smart meters or other such wireless networks.

However, customers can still opt-out of getting a smart meter and continue to have their meter manually read.

Those who choose not to get a smart meter must pay a $75 initial opt-out fee and an additional $17.50 monthly meter reading charge per account.

If smart meters have not yet been installed, Duke Energy will waive the $75 initial opt-out fee if customers notify the company they want to opt out within 21 days of receiving the installation postcard notice.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News