Everything's coming up green

Hurricane Michael Statistics track catastrophic wind speed, storm surge, rainfall totals, power outages, evacuations, and fatalities across Florida and the Southeast, detailing Category 4 intensity, Saffir-Simpson scale impacts, and emergency response resources.

Key Points

Hurricane Michael statistics detail wind speed, storm surge, rainfall, outages, and deaths from Category 4 landfall.

✅ 155 mph landfall winds; 14 ft storm surge; 12 in rainfall max

✅ 1.6M without power; 30,000 restoring crews; 6 states emergency

✅ 325k ordered evacuations; 32 deaths; FEMA and Guard deployed

Hurricane Michael, a historic Category 4 storm, struck the Florida Panhandle early Wednesday afternoon, unleashing heavy rain, high winds and a devastating storm surge.

Here is a look at the dangerous storm by the numbers:

155 mph: Wind speed -- nearly the highest possible for a Category 4 hurricane -- with which Michael made landfall near Mexico Beach and Panama City. A hurricane with 157 mph or higher is a Category 5, the strongest on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale.

129 mph: Peak wind gust reported Wednesday at Tyndall Air Force Base, which is about 12 miles southeast of Panama City, Florida.

32: Number of storm-related deaths attributed to Michael thus far, including an 11-year-old girl who local officials say was killed when part of a metal carport crashed into her family's mobile home in Lake Seminole, Georgia, and a 38-year-old man who was killed when a tree fell onto his moving car in Statesville, North Carolina.

Waves take over a house as Hurricane Michael comes ashore in Alligator Point, Fla., Oct. 10, 2018.

14 feet: Maximum height forecast for the storm surge when Michael's strong winds pushed the ocean water onto land. A storm surge just over 9 feet was reported Wednesday in Apalachicola, Florida.

12 inches: Isolated maximum amount of rain that Michael was expected to dump across the Florida Panhandle and the state's Big Bend region, as well as in southeast Alabama and parts of southwest and central Georgia.

9 inches: Maximum amount of rain that Michael could bring to isolated areas from Virginia to North Carolina.

1.6 million: Number of homes and businesses without power in Florida, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia as of Friday morning, a reminder that extended outages can persist after major disasters.

30,000: Number of workers mobilized from across the country to help restore power, underscoring the risks of field repairs such as line crew injuries during recovery.

6: Number of states that had emergency declarations in anticipation of Michael: Florida, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia.

325,000: Estimated number of people in the storm's path who were told to evacuate by local authorities.

6,000: Approximate number of people who stayed in the roughly 80 shelters across Florida, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina on Wednesday night, while those sheltering at home were urged to avoid overheated power strips that can spark fires.

3,000: Number of personnel the Federal Emergency Management Agency deployed ahead of landfall, while utilities prepared on-site staffing plans to maintain operations during widespread disruptions.

35: Number of counties in Florida, of the state's 67, where Gov. Rick Scott declared a state of emergency prior to landfall, and grid reliability warnings often underscore systemic risks during national emergencies.

3,500: Number of Florida National Guard troops activated for pre-landfall coordination and planning, with an emphasis on high water and search-and-rescue operations.

600: Number of Florida state troopers assigned to the Panhandle and Big Bend region to assist with response and recovery efforts, including public reminders about downed line safety in affected communities.

500: Number of disaster relief workers that the American Red Cross was sending to affected areas in the Sunshine State.

200: Approximate number of patients being evacuated from at least two hospitals in Florida due to damage from the hurricane, highlighting how critical facilities depend on staff who have raised workforce safety concerns during other crises. Bay Medical Center Sacred Heart in Panama City said in a statement Thursday that its facility was damaged during the storm and thus is transferring more than 200 patients, including 39 who are critically ill, to regional hospitals. Gulf Coast Regional Medical Center, also in Panama City, announced in a statement Thursday that it's evacuating its roughly approximately patients, starting with the most critically ill, "because of the infrastructure challenges in our community."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

FERC Capacity Markets face scrutiny as GAO flags inconsistent data on resource adequacy and costs, urging performance goals, risk assessment, and better metrics across PJM, ISO-NE, NYISO, and MISO amid cost-recovery proposals.

Key Points

FERC capacity markets aim for resource adequacy, but GAO finds weak data and urges goals and performance reviews.

✅ GAO cites inconsistent data on resource adequacy and costs

✅ Calls for performance goals, metrics, and risk assessment

✅ Applies to PJM, ISO-NE, NYISO; MISO market is voluntary

Capacity markets may or may not be functioning properly, but FERC can't adequately make that determination, according to the GAO report.

"Available information on the level of resource adequacy ... and related costs in regions with and without capacity markets is not comprehensive or consistent," the report found. "Moreover, consistent data on historical trends in resource adequacy and related costs are not available for regions without capacity markets."

The review concluded that FERC collects some useful information in regions with and without capacity markets, but GAO said it "identified problems with data quality, such as inconsistent data."

GAO included three recommendations, including calling for FERC to take steps to improve the quality of data collected, and regularly assess the overall performance of capacity markets by developing goals for those assessments.

"FERC should develop and document an approach to regularly identify, assess, and respond to risks that capacity markets face," the report also recommended. The commission "has not established performance goals for capacity markets, measured progress against those goals, or used performance information to make changes to capacity markets as needed."

The recommendation comes as the agency is grappling with a controversial proposal to assure cost-recovery for struggling coal and nuclear plants in the power markets. So far, the proposal would only apply to power markets with capacity markets, including PJM Interconnection, the New England ISO, the New York ISO and possibly MISO. However MISO only has a voluntary capacity market, making it unclear how the proposed rule would be applied there. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Minnesota Electric Cooperatives are driving grid innovation with smart meters, time-of-use pricing, demand response, and energy storage, including iron-air batteries, to manage peak loads, integrate wind and solar, and cut costs for rural members.

Key Points

Member-owned utilities piloting load management, meters, and storage to integrate wind and solar, cutting peak demand.

✅ Time-of-use pricing pilots lower bills and shift peak load.

✅ Iron-air battery tests add multi-day, low-cost energy storage.

✅ Smart meters enable demand response across rural co-ops.

Minnesota electric cooperatives have quietly emerged as laboratories for clean grid innovation, outpacing investor-owned utilities on smart meter installations, time-based pricing pilots, and experimental battery storage solutions.

“Co-ops have innovation in their DNA,” said David Ranallo, a spokesperson for Great River Energy, a generation and distribution cooperative that supplies power to 28 member utilities — making it one of the state’s largest co-op players.

Minnesota farmers helped pioneer the electric co-op model more than a century ago, similar to modern community-generated green electricity initiatives, pooling resources to build power lines, transformers and other equipment to deliver power to rural parts of the state. Today, 44 member-owned electric co-ops serve about 1.7 million rural and suburban customers and supply almost a quarter of the state’s electricity.

Co-op utilities have by many measures lagged on clean energy. Many still rely on electricity from coal-fired power plants. They’ve used political clout with rural lawmakers to oppose new pollution regulations and climate legislation, and some have tried to levy steep fees on customers who install solar panels.

Where they are emerging as innovators is with new models and technology for managing electric grid loads — from load-shifting water heaters to a giant experimental battery made of iron. The programs are saving customers money by delaying the need for expensive new infrastructure, and also showing ways to unlock more value from cheap but variable wind and solar power.

Unlike investor-owned utilities, “we have no incentive to invest in new generation,” said Darrick Moe, executive director of the Minnesota Rural Electric Association. Curbing peak energy demand has a direct financial benefit for members.

Minnesota electric cooperatives have launched dozens of programs, such as the South Metro solar project, in recent years aimed at reducing energy use and peak loads, in particular. They include:

Cost calculations are the primary driver for electric cooperatives’ recent experimentation, and a lighter regulatory structure and evolving electricity market reforms have allowed them to act more quickly than for-profit utilities.

“Co-ops and [municipal utilities] can act a lot more nimbly compared to investor-owned utilities … which have to go through years of proceedings and discussions about cost-recovery,” said Gabe Chan, a University of Minnesota associate professor who has researched electric co-ops extensively. Often, approval from a local board is all that’s required to launch a venture.

Great River Energy’s programs, which are rebranded and sold through member co-ops, yielded more than 101 million kilowatt-hours of savings last year — enough to power 9,500 homes for a year.

Beyond lowering costs for participants and customers at large, the energy-saving and behavior-changing programs sometimes end up being cited as case studies by larger utilities considering similar offerings. Advocates supporting a proposal by the city of Minneapolis and CenterPoint Energy to allow residents to pay for energy efficiency improvements on their utility bills through distributed energy rebates used several examples from cooperatives.

Despite the pace of innovation on load management, electric cooperatives have been relatively slow to transition from coal-fired power. More than half of Great River Energy’s electricity came from coal last year, and Dairyland Power, another major power wholesaler for Minnesota co-ops, generated 70% of its energy from coal. Meanwhile, Xcel Energy, the state’s largest investor-owned utility, has already reduced coal to about 20% of its energy mix.

The transition to cleaner power for some co-ops has been slowed by long-term contracts with power suppliers that have locked them into dirty power. Others have also been stalled by management or boards that have been resistant to change. John Farrell, director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance’s Energy Democracy program, said generalizing co-ops is difficult. 

“We’ve seen some co-ops that have got 75-year contracts for coal, that are invested in coal mines and using their newsletter to deny climate change,” he said. “Then you see a lot of them doing really amazing things like creating energy storage systems … and load balancing [programs], because they are unique and locally managed and can have that freedom to experiment without having to go through a regulatory process.”

Great River Energy, for its part, says it intends to reach 54% renewable generation by 2025, while some communities, like Frisco, Colorado, are targeting 100% clean electricity by specific dates. Its members recently voted to sell North Dakota’s largest coal plant, but the arrangement involves members continuing to buy power from the new owners for another decade.

The cooperative’s path to clean power could become clearer if its experimental iron-air battery project is successful. The project, the first of its kind in the country, is expected to be completed by 2023.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

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

UK Marine Energy and Climate Resilience can counter sea level rise and storm surge with tidal power, subsea turbines, heat pumps, and flood barriers, delivering renewable electricity, stability, and coastal protection for the United Kingdom.

Key Points

Integrated use of tidal power, barriers, and heat pumps to curb sea level rise, manage storms, and green the UK grid.

✅ Tidal bridges and subsea turbines enhance baseload renewables

✅ Integrated barriers cut storm surge and river flood risk

✅ Heat pumps and marine heat networks decarbonize coastal cities

IN concentrating on electrically driven cars, the UK’s new ten-point energy plans, and recent UK net zero policies, ignores the elephant in the room.

It fails to address the forecast six-metre sea level rise from global warming rapidly melting the Greenland ice sheet.

Rising sea levels and storm surge, combined with increasingly heavy rainfall swelling our rivers, threaten not only hundreds of coastal communities but also much unprotected strategic infrastructure, including electricity systems that need greater resilience.

New nuclear power stations proposed in this United Kingdom plan would produce radioactive waste requiring thousands of years to safely decay.

This is hardly the solution for the Green Energy future, or the broader global energy transition, that our overlooked marine energy resource could provide.

Sea defences and barrier design, built and integrated with subsea turbines and heat pumps, can deliver marine-driven heat and power to offset the costs, not only of new Thames Barriers, but also future Severn, Forth and other barrages, while reducing reliance on high-GWP gases such as SF6 in switchgear across the grid.

At the Pentland Firth, existing marine turbine power could be enhanced by turbines deployed from new tidal bridges to provide much of UK’s electricity needs, as nations chart an electricity future that replaces fossil fuels, from its estimated 60 gigawatt capability.

Energy from Bluemull Sound could likewise be harvested and exported or used to enhance development around UK’s new space station at Unst.

The 2021 Climate Change Summit gives Glasgow the platform to secure Scotland’s place in a true green, marine energy future and help build an electric planet for the long term.

We must not waste this opportunity.

THERE is no vaccine for climate change.

It is, of course, wonderful news that such progress is being made in the development of Covid-19 vaccines but there is a risk that, no matter how serious the Covid crisis is, it is distracting attention, political will and resources from the climate crisis, a much longer term and more devastating catastrophe.

They are intertwined. As climate and ecological systems change, vectors and pathogens migrate and disease spreads.

What lessons can be learned from one to apply to the other?

Prevention is better than cure. We need to urgently address the climate crisis, charting a path to net zero electricity by the middle of the century, to help prevent future pandemics.

We are only as safe as the most vulnerable. Covid immunisation will protect the most vulnerable; to protect against the effects of climate change we need to look far more deeply. Global challenges require systemic change.

Neither Covid or climate change respect national borders and, for both, we need to value and trust science and the scientific experts and separate them from political posturing.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Offshore Wind Cost Competitiveness is rising as larger turbines boost megawatt output, cut LCOE, and trim maintenance and installation time, enabling projects in New England to rival natural gas pricing while scaling reliably.

Key Points

It describes how larger offshore turbines lower LCOE and O&M, making U.S. projects price competitive with natural gas.

✅ Larger turbines boost MW output and reduce LCOE.

✅ Lower O&M and faster installation cut lifecycle costs.

✅ Competes with gas in New England bids, per BNEF.

Massive offshore wind turbines keep getting bigger, as projects like the biggest UK offshore wind farm come online, and that’s helping make the power cheaper — to the point where developers say new projects in U.S. waters can compete with natural gas.

The price “is going to be a real eye-opener,” said Bryan Martin, chairman of Deepwater Wind LLC, which won an auction in May to build a 400-megawatt wind farm southeast of Rhode Island.

Deepwater built the only U.S. offshore wind farm, a 30-megawatt project that was completed south of Block Island in 2016. The company’s bid was selected by Rhode Island the same day that Massachusetts picked Vineyard Wind to build an 800-megawatt wind farm in the same area, while international investors such as Japanese utilities in UK projects signal growing confidence.

#google#

Bigger turbines that make more electricity have cut the cost per megawatt by about half, a trend aided by higher-than-expected wind potential in many markets, said Tom Harries, a wind analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. That also reduces maintenance expenses and installation time. All of this is helping offshore wind vie with conventional power plants.

“You could not build a thermal gas plant in New England for the price of the wind bids in Massachusetts and Rhode Island,” Martin said Friday at the U.S. Offshore Wind Conference in Boston. “It’s very cost-effective for consumers.”

The Massachusetts project could be about $100 to $120 a megawatt hour, according to a February estimate from Harries, though recent UK price spikes during low wind highlight volatility. The actual prices there and in Rhode Island weren’t disclosed.

For comparison, a new U.S. combine-cycle gas turbine ranges from $40 to $60 a megawatt-hour, and a new coal plant is $67 to $113, according to BNEF data.

A new power plant in land-constrained New England would probably be higher than that, and during winter peaks the region has seen record oil-fired generation in New England that underscores reliability concerns. More importantly, gas plants get a significant portion of their revenue from being able to guarantee that power is always available, something wind farms can’t do, said William Nelson, a New York-based analyst with BNEF. Looking only at the price at which offshore turbines can deliver electricity is a “narrow mindset,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News