Hurricane Oscar Public Advisory


000
WTNT31 KNHC 200534
TCPAT1

BULLETIN
Hurricane Oscar Intermediate Advisory Number 4A
NWS National Hurricane Center Miami FL       AL162024
200 AM EDT Sun Oct 20 2024

...OSCAR APPROACHING GREAT INAGUA ISLAND...


SUMMARY OF 200 AM EDT...0600 UTC...INFORMATION
----------------------------------------------
LOCATION...21.3N 72.6W
ABOUT 40 MI...65 KM ENE OF GREAT INAGUA ISLAND
ABOUT 340 MI...550 KM E OF CAMAGUEY CUBA
MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS...85 MPH...140 KM/H
PRESENT MOVEMENT...W OR 265 DEGREES AT 10 MPH...17 KM/H
MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE...987 MB...29.15 INCHES


WATCHES AND WARNINGS
--------------------
CHANGES WITH THIS ADVISORY:

None.

SUMMARY OF WATCHES AND WARNINGS IN EFFECT:

A Hurricane Warning is in effect for...
* Turks and Caicos Islands
* Southeastern Bahamas
* North coast of the Cuban Provinces of Holguin and Guantanamo to
Punta Maisi

A Hurricane Watch is in effect for...
* North coast of the Cuban Province of Las Tunas

A Tropical Storm Warning is in effect for...
* South coast of Cuban Province of Guantanamo
* North coast of the Cuban Province of Las Tunas

A Tropical Storm Watch is in effect for...
* North coast of the Cuban Province of Camaguey

A Hurricane Warning means that hurricane conditions are expected
somewhere within the warning area. Preparations to protect life
and property should be rushed to completion.

A Hurricane Watch means that hurricane conditions are possible
within the watch area. A watch is typically issued 48 hours
before the anticipated first occurrence of tropical-storm-force
winds, conditions that make outside preparations difficult or
dangerous.

A Tropical Storm Warning means that tropical storm conditions are
expected somewhere within the warning area within 36 hours.

A Tropical Storm Watch means that tropical storm conditions are
possible within the watch area, generally within 48 hours.

For storm information specific to your area, please monitor
products issued by your national meteorological service.


DISCUSSION AND OUTLOOK
----------------------
At 200 AM EDT (0600 UTC), the center of Hurricane Oscar was located
near latitude 21.3 North, longitude 72.6 West. Oscar is moving
toward the west near 10 mph (17 km/h). A turn to the west-southwest
is forecast later today, and the center of Oscar is forecast to 
reach the coast of Cuba tonight. A turn toward the north and
northeast is expected in a couple of days.

Maximum sustained winds are near 85 mph (140 km/h) with higher
gusts. Small intensity fluctuations are possible during the next day
or so, but weakening is anticipated tonight and Monday after the 
center crosses the coast.

Hurricane-force winds extend outward up to 5 miles (10 km) from the
center and tropical-storm-force winds extend outward up to 45 miles
(75 km).

The estimated minimum central pressure is 987 mb (29.15 inches).


HAZARDS AFFECTING LAND
----------------------
Key messages for Oscar can be found in the Tropical Cyclone
Discussion under AWIPS header MIATCDAT1 and WMO header WTNT41 KNHC
and on the web at hurricanes.gov/text/MIATCDAT1.shtml

WIND:  Hurricane conditions are expected to spread across portions
of the warning area in the Southeastern Bahamas, particularly Great 
Inagua Island, this morning. Hurricane conditions are expected in 
the warning area in Cuba this evening.

Tropical storm conditions are expected in the warning area and
possible in the watch area of Cuba tonight into Monday.

RAINFALL: Through Tuesday, rainfall amounts of 4 to 6 inches with
isolated amounts of 8 inches are expected across eastern Cuba.
Across the Turks and Caicos and southeastern Bahamas, 2 to 4 inches
are expected, with isolated amounts around 6 inches.

For a complete depiction of forecast rainfall associated with Oscar,
please see the National Weather Service Storm Total Rainfall
Graphic, available at hurricanes.gov/graphics_at1.shtml?rainqpf

STORM SURGE: A dangerous storm surge is expected to produce
significant coastal flooding in the Turks and Caicos Islands and 
southeastern Bahamas, where water levels are expected to be between 
2 and 4 feet above normal tide levels.  Water levels of 1 to 3 ft 
above normal tide levels are expected along the north shore of Cuba 
in areas of onshore winds.  Near the coast, the surge will be 
accompanied by large and destructive waves.


NEXT ADVISORY
-------------
Next complete advisory at 500 AM EDT.

$$
Forecaster Berg

Originally Posted at:
NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER and CENTRAL PACIFIC HURRICANE CENTER
At The NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter

Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.

Current subscribers:

zerohedge
Economics , News , Politics , Science
November 22, 2024
2 views

Utility Companies Are Not On Our Side

Authored by Linnea Leuken & H. Sterlin Burnett via RealClearPolitics,

When electric power was a novel idea and just beginning to be adopted in urban centers, the industry had a Wild West feel to it as multiple companies strung wires, opened power plants, and sold electricity on an unregulated market. Competition was fierce, but state and local governments concluded that the inefficiencies and redundancies endangered the public and imposed higher costs.

So states set up service territories with monopolistic or oligopolistic service providers, who were entrusted with providing reliable power and sufficient reserve for peak periods in return for being guaranteed a profit on rates proposed by the utilities but approved or set by newly established state public utility commissions (PUCs). These commissions were charged with ensuring public utilities served the general public universally within their territory, providing reliable service at reasonable rates.

Much has changed since then. Politicians began to supplant engineers to decide, based on self-interested calculations, what types of power should be favored and disfavored, and what types of appliances and modes of transportation Americans could use. As the 21st century dawned, a new consideration entered the picture: Climate change.

Under the banner of combatting global warming, utilities were at first encouraged and then coerced into adopting plans and policies aimed at achieving net zero emissions of carbon dioxide. The aim of providing reliable, affordable power – the rationale for the electric utilities’ monopolies in the first place – was supplanted by a controversial and partisan political goal. Initially, as states began to push renewable energy mandates, utilities fought back, arguing that prematurely closing reliable power plants, primarily coal-fueled, would increase energy costs, compromise grid reliability, and leave them with millions of dollars in stranded assets.

Politicians addressed those concerns with subsidies and tax credits for renewable power. In addition, they passed on the costs of the expanded grid to ratepayers and taxpayers. Effectively, elected officials and the PUCs, with a wink and a nod, indemnified utilities for power supply failures, allowing utilities to claim that aging grid infrastructure and climate change were to blame for failures rather than the increased percentage of intermittent power added to the grid at their direction.

Today, utilities have enthusiastically embraced the push for renewable (but less reliable) resources, primarily wind and solar. PUCs guarantee a high rate of return for all new power source (wind, solar, and battery) installations, which has resulted in the construction of ever more and bigger wind, solar, and battery facilities. The costlier, the more profitable – regardless of their compromised ability to provide reliable power or the cost impact on residential, commercial, and industrial ratepayers.

A new report from The Heartland Institute demonstrates the significant financial incentives from government and financiers for utilities to turn away from affordable energy sources like natural gas and coal, and even nuclear, and instead aggressively pursue wind and solar in particular. All of this is done in the name of pursuing net zero emissions, which every single major utility company in the country boasts about on their corporate reports and websites. Reliability and affordability come secondary to the decarbonization agenda.

Dominion Energy is a good example, as they are one of the most aggressive movers on climate-focused policy. Dominion CEO Robert Blue speaks excitedly about government-forced transitions to a wind- and solar-dominated grid in interviews. During one interview with a renewable energy podcast, he said:

“[S]ometimes the government needs to focus on outcomes. We’re trying to address a climate crisis, and we are going to need to move quickly to do that.” In the same interview, he expressed enthusiasm about federal policy that would achieve a government-directed transition.

And why wouldn’t he? Dominion, like most utilities, is granted government tax credits and guarantees on returns for investing in large, expensive projects like offshore wind, the most expensive source of electric power. The bigger the project, the bigger the profit with guaranteed returns.

Also, onshore wind companies have received special “take limits” from the Fish and Wildlife Service to kill protected bald eagles and golden eagles, while prosecuting oil companies if birds are injured or killed on their sites.

Net zero policies are not the environmental panacea that climate change activists proclaim. Industrial-scale wind and solar use substantially more land than conventional energy resources, disrupting ecosystems and destroying wildlife habitats in the process.

And despite recent technological advances, wind and solar are still not dispatchable resources, meaning they cannot provide consistent power at all times needed. Refuting claims made by environmentalists and utilities that wind and solar are the cheapest sources of electric power, costs have risen steeply as the use of wind and solar has increased. Customers of Duke Energy in Kentucky, for example, are paying 78% higher rates in the wake of coal-fired plant closings.

Politicians and utilities are pushing for even more electrification for appliances and vehicles despite the fact that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission officials have repeatedly warned in recent years that adding more demand for electric power while replacing reliable power sources with intermittent renewables is destabilizing the power system.

It appears that the utilities prioritize short-term profits over grid reliability or keeping costs reasonable – and the government officials who are supposed to keep them in check are only encouraging them. It doesn’t need to be this way. The U.S. grid was not always this way. Only in recent years, with the obsessive pursuit of net zero, have rolling black and brownouts become so common.

Today, utility companies are sending lobbyists to conservative policymakers in order to convince them that the utilities have our best interests in mind. Their track record tells another story. Meanwhile, Americans have less reliable electricity at higher costs.

Linnea Lueken (llueken@heartland.org, X: @LinneaLueken) is a research fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 11/22/2024 – 06:30