A new patents pending solar energy system will soon make it possible to produce electricity at a wholesale cost of 5 cents per kWh (kilowatt hour). This price is competitive with the wholesale cost of producing electricity using fossil fuels and a fraction of the current cost of solar energy.
XCPV (Xtreme Concentrated Photovoltaics), a system that concentrates the equivalent of more than 1,600 times the sunÂ’s energy onto the worldÂ’s most efficient solar cells, was announced today by SUNRGI, a solar energy system designer and developer, at the National Energy Marketers AssociationÂ’s 11th Annual Global Energy Forum in Washington, DC. The technology will enable power companies, businesses, and residents to produce electricity from solar energy at a lower cost than ever before.
“Solar Power at 5 cents per kWh would be a world-changing breakthrough,” said Craig Goodman, president, National Energy Marketers Association. “It would make solar generation of electricity as affordable as generation from coal, natural gas or other non-renewable sources, without requiring a subsidy.”
“In a little more than a year we were able to develop and successfully test XCPV,” said Robert S. (Bob) Block, co-founder and SUNRGI principal. “We expect the SUNRGI system to become available for both on- and off-grid power applications, worldwide, in twelve to fifteen months.”
What differentiates SUNRGI’s XCPV system from any other solar energy system includes: a proprietary, integrated low profile technology for concentrating sunlight; a proprietary technology and methodology for cooling solar cells; a low cost, modular system optimized for mass-production; less land area or “roof top” requirements than typical solar energy systems; a technology roadmap for continuous improvement; low-cost field installation; and, a custom-designed system for easy operation and maintenance.
Manitoba Hydro Court Ruling affirms the Public Utilities Board exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering a First Nations rate class, overturning an electricity rates appeal tied to geography, poverty, and regulatory authority in Manitoba.
Key Points
A decision holding the PUB lacked authority to create a First Nations rate class, restoring uniform electricity pricing.
✅ Equalized electricity pricing reaffirmed across Manitoba
✅ Geography, not poverty, found decisive in unlawful rate class
Manitoba Hydro was wrongly forced to create a new rate class for electricity customers living on First Nations, the Manitoba Court of Appeal has ruled.
The court decided the Public Utilities Board "exceeded its jurisdiction" by mandating Indigenous customers on First Nations could have a different electricity rate from other Manitobans.
The board made the order in 2018, which exempted those customers from the general rate increase that year of 3.6 per cent.
"The directive constituted the creation and implementation of general social policy, an area outside of the PUB's jurisdiction and encroaching into areas that are better suited to the federal and provincial government," says the decision, which was released Tuesday.
Hydro's appeal of the PUB's decision went to court earlier this year.
At the time, the Crown corporation acknowledged many Indigenous people on First Nations live in poverty, but it argued the Public Utilities Board was overstepping its authority in trying to address the issue by creating a new rate class.
It also argued it was against provincial law to charge different rates in different areas of the province.
The PUB, however, insisted that legislation gives it the right to decide which factors are relevant when considering electricity prices, such as social issues.
Special Manitoba Hydro rate class needed to offset challenges of living on First Nations, appeal court hears Manitoba Hydro can appeal order to create special First Nation rate The board had heard evidence that some customers were making "unacceptable" sacrifices to keep the lights on each month.
Decision 'heavy-handed': AMC The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, an intervener in the appeal, had backed the utility board's position. It said on-reserve customers are disproportionately vulnerable to rate hikes over time.
Grand Chief Arlen Dumas said Wednesday he was surprised by the court's ruling.
"I will be speaking with my federal and provincial counterparts on how we deal with this issue, because I think it's the wrong [decision]. It's heavy-handed and we need to address it."
The appeal court judges said there is past precedent for setting equal electricity rates, regardless of where customers live. Legislation to that effect was made in the early 2000s and a few years ago, the PUB recognized that geographical limitations should not be imposed on a class of customers.
Since the board's new order didn't extend the same savings to First Nations members who don't live on reserve but face similar financial circumstances, it is clear the deciding factor was geography, rather than poverty or treaty status, the judges said.
Manitoba Hydro temporarily cutting 200 jobs, many of them front-line workers "In my view, the PUB erred in law when it created an on-reserve class based solely on a geographic region of the province in which customers are located," the decision read.
While Manitoba Hydro objected to the PUB's order in 2018, it still devoted money to create the new customer class.
Spokesperson Bruce Owen said the utility is still studying the impact of the court's decision, but it appreciates the ruling.
"We all recognize that many people on First Nations have challenges, but our argument was solely on whether or not the PUB had the authority to create a special rate class based on where people live."
Owen added that Hydro recognizes electricity rates can be a hardship on individuals facing poverty. He said those considerations are part of the discussions the corporation has with the utilities board.
Lawa Hydropower Station approved on the Jinsha River, a Yangtze tributary, delivers 2,000 MW via four units; 784 ft dam, 12 sq mi reservoir, Sichuan-Tibet site, US$4.59b investment, Huadian stake, renewable energy generation.
Key Points
A 2,000 MW dam project on the Jinsha River with four units, a 784 ft barrier, and 8.36 billion kWh annual output.
China has approved construction of the 2,000-MW Lawa hydropower station, a Yangtze tributary hydropower project on the Jinsha River, multiple news agencies are reporting.
Lawa, at the junction of Sichuan province and the Tibet autonomous region, will feature a 784-foot-high dam and the reservoir will submerge about 12 square miles of land. The Jinsha River is a tributary of the Yangtze River, and the project aligns with green hydrogen development in China.
The National Development and Reform Commission of the People’s Republic of China, which also guides China's nuclear energy development as part of national planning, is reported to have said that four turbine-generator units will be installed, and the project is expected to produce about 8.36 billion kWh of electricity annually.
Total investment in the project is to be US$4.59 billion, and Huadian Group Co. Ltd. will have a 48% stake in the project, reflecting overseas power infrastructure activity, with minority stakes held by provincial firms, according to China Daily.
In other recent news in China, Andritz received an order in December 2018 to supply four 350-MW reversible pump-turbines and motor-generators, alongside progress in compressed air generation technologies, for the 1,400-MW ZhenAn pumped storage plant in Shaanxi province.
Hydro One Avista merger faces regulatory scrutiny in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, as political risk outweighs defensive utilities fundamentals like stable cash flow, rate base growth, EPS outlook, and a near 5% dividend yield.
Key Points
A planned Hydro One-Avista acquisition awaiting key state approvals amid elevated political and regulatory risk.
✅ Hold rating, $24 price target, 28.1% implied return
✅ EPS forecast: $1.27 in 2018; $1.38 in 2019
✅ Defensive utility: stable cash flow, 4-6% rate base growth
A seemingly positive development for Hydro One is overshadowed by ongoing political and regulatory risk, as seen after the CEO and board ouster, Industrial Alliance Securities analyst Jeremy Rosenfield says.
On October 4, staff from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission filed updated testimony in support of the merger of Hydro One and natural gas distributor Avista, which had previously received U.S. antitrust clearance from federal authorities.
The merger, which was announced in July of 2017 has received the green light from federal and key states, with Washington, Oregon and Idaho being exceptions, though the companies would later seek reconsideration from U.S. regulators in the process.
But Rosenfield says even though decisions from Oregon and Idaho are expected by December, there are still too many unknowns about Hydro One to recommend investors jump into the stock.
Hydro One stock defensive but risky
“We continue to view Hydro One as a fundamentally defensive investment, underpinned by (1) stable earnings and cash flows from its regulated utility businesses (2) healthy organic rate base and earning growth (4-6%/year through 2022) and (3) an attractive dividend (~5% yield, 70-80% target payout),” the analyst says. “In the meantime, and ahead of key regulatory approvals in the AVA transaction, we continue to see heightened political/regulatory risk as an overhand on the stock, outweighing Hydro One’s fundamentals in the near term.”
In a research update to clients today, Rosenfield maintained his “Hold” rating and one year price target of $24.00 on Hydro One, implying a return of 28.1 per cent at the time of publication.
Rosenfield thinks Hydro One will generate EPS of $1.27 per share in fiscal 2018, even though its Q2 profit plunged 23% as electricity revenue fell. He expects that number will improve to EPS of $1.38 a share the following year.
Power Grid Attacks surge across substations and transmission lines, straining critical infrastructure as DHS and FBI cite vandalism, domestic extremists, and cybersecurity risks impacting resilience, outages, and grid reliability nationwide.
Key Points
Power Grid Attacks are deliberate strikes on substations and lines to disrupt power and weaken grid reliability.
✅ Physical attacks rose across multiple states and utilities.
✅ DHS and FBI warn of threats to critical infrastructure.
✅ Substation security and grid resilience upgrades urged.
Even before Christmas Day attacks on power substations in five states in the Pacific Northwest and Southeast, similar incidents of attacks, vandalism and suspicious activity were on the rise.
Federal energy reports through August – the most recent available – show an increase in physical attacks at electrical facilities across the nation this year, continuing a trend seen since 2017.
At least 108 human-related events were reported during the first eight months of 2022, compared with 99 in all of 2021 and 97 in 2020. More than a dozen cases of vandalism have been reported since September.
The attacks have prompted a flurry of calls to better protect the nation's power grid, with a renewed focus on protecting the U.S. power grid across sectors, but experts have warned for more than three decades that stepped-up protection was needed.
Attacks on power stations on the rise Twice this year, the Department of Homeland Security warned "a heightened threat environment" remains for the nation, including its critical infrastructure amid reports of suspected Russian breaches of power plant systems.
At least 20 actual physical attacks were reported, compared with six in all of 2021. Suspicious-activity reports jumped three years ago, nearly doubling in 2020 to 32 events. In the first eight months of this year, 34 suspicious incidents were reported. Total human-related incidents – including vandalism, suspicious activity and cyber events such as Russian hackers and U.S. utilities in recent years – are on track to be the highest since the reports started showing such activity in 2011.
Attacks reported in at least 5 states Since September, attacks or potential attacks have been reported on at least 18 additional substations and one power plant in Florida, Oregon, Washington and the Carolinas. Several involved firearms.
In Florida: Six "intrusion events" occurred at Duke Energy substations in September, resulting in at least one brief power outage, according to the News Nation television network, which cited a report the utility sent to the Energy Department. Duke Energy spokesperson Ana Gibbs confirmed a related arrest, but the company declined to comment further.
In Oregon and Washington state: Substations were attacked at least six times in November and December, with firearms used in some cases, local news outlets reported. On Christmas Day, four additional substations were vandalized in Washington State, cutting power to more than 14,000 customers.
In North Carolina: A substation in Maysville was vandalized on Nov. 11. On Dec. 3, shootings that authorities called a "targeted attack" damaged two power substations in Moore County, leaving tens of thousands without power amid freezing temperatures.
In South Carolina: Days later, gunfire was reported near a hydropower plant, but police said the shooting was a "random act."
It's not yet clear whether any of the attacks were coordinated. After the North Carolina attacks, a coordinating council between the electric power industry and the federal government ordered a security evaluation.
FBI mum on its investigations The FBI is looking into some of the attacks, including cyber intrusions where hackers accessed control rooms in past cases, but it hasn't said how many it's investigating or where.
Shelley Lynch, a spokesperson for the FBI's Charlotte field office, confirmed the bureau was investigating the North Carolina attack. The Kershaw County Sheriff's Office reported the FBI was looking into the South Carolina incident.
Utilities in Oregon and Washington told news outlets they were cooperating with the FBI, but spokespeople for the agency's Seattle and Portland field offices said they couldn't confirm or deny an investigation.
Could domestic extremists be involved? In January, the Department of Homeland Security said domestic extremists had been developing "credible, specific plans" since at least 2020, including a Neo-Nazi plot against power stations detailed in a federal complaint, and would continue to "encourage physical attacks against electrical infrastructure."
In February, three men who ascribed to white supremacy and Neo-Nazism pleaded guilty to federal crimes related to a scheme to attack the grid with rifles.
In a news release, Timothy Langan, assistant director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, said the defendants "wanted to attack regional power substations and expected the damage would lead to economic distress and civil unrest."
Why is the power grid so hard to protect? Industry experts, federal officials and others have warned in one report after another since at least 1990 that the power grid was at risk, and a recent grid vulnerability report card highlights dangerous weak points, said Granger Morgan, an engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon University who chaired three National Academies of Sciences reports.
The reports urged state and federal agencies to collaborate to make the system more resilient to attacks and natural disasters such as hurricanes and storms.
"The system is inherently vulnerable, with the U.S. grid experiencing more blackouts than other developed nations in one study. It's spread all across the countryside," which makes the lines and substations easy targets, Morgan said. The grid includes more than 7,300 power plants, 160,000 miles of high-voltage power lines and 55,000 transmission substations.
One challenge is that there's no single entity whose responsibilities span the entire system, Morgan said. And the risks are only increasing as the grid expands to include renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, he said.
Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project faces NEB certificate review, with public hearings, Indigenous consultation, and cross-border approval weighing permit vs certificate timelines, potential land expropriation, and Hydro's 2020 in-service date for the 308-MW intertie.
Key Points
A cross-border hydro line linking Manitoba and Minnesota, now under NEB review through a permit or certificate process.
✅ NEB recommends certificate with public hearings and cabinet approval
✅ Stakeholders cite land, health, and economic impacts along route
A recommendation from the National Energy Board could push back the construction start date of a $453-million hydroelectric transmission line from Manitoba to Minnesota.
In a letter to federal Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr, the regulatory agency recommends using a "certificate" approval process, which could take more time than the simpler "permit" process Manitoba Hydro favours.
The certificate process involves public hearings, reflecting First Nations intervention seen in other power-line debates, to weigh the merits of the project, which would then go to the federal cabinet for approval.
The NEB says this process would allow for more procedural flexibility and "address Aboriginal concerns that may arise in the circumstances of this process."
The Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project would provide the final link in a chain that brings hydroelectricity from generating stations in northern Manitoba, through the Bipole III transmission line and, like the New England Clean Power Link project, across the U.S. border as part of a 308-megawatt deal with the Green Bay-based Wisconsin Public Service.
When Hydro filed its application in December 2016, it had expected to have approval by the end of August 2017 and to begin construction on the line in mid-December, in order to have the line in operation by May or June 2020.
Groups representing stakeholders along the proposed route of the transmission line had mixed reactions to the energy board's recommendation.
A lawyer representing a coalition of more than 120 landowners in the Rural Municipality of Taché and around La Broquerie, Man., welcomed the opportunity to have a more "fulsome" discussion about the project.
"I think it's a positive step. As people become more familiar with the project, the deficiencies with it become more obvious," said Kevin Toyne, who represents the Southeast Stakeholders Coalition.
Toyne said some coalition members are worried that Hydro will forcibly expropriate land in order to build the line, while others are worried about potential economic and health impacts of having the line so close to their homes. They have proposed moving the line farther east.
When the Clean Environment Commission — an arm's-length provincial government agency — held public hearings on the proposed route earlier this year, the coalition brought their concerns forward, echoing Site C opposition voiced by northerners, but Toyne says both the commission and Hydro ignored them.
Hydro still aiming for 2020 in-service date
The Manitoba Métis Federation also participated in those public hearings. MMF president David Chartrand worries about the impact a possible delay, as seen with the Site C work halt tied to treaty rights, could have on revenue from sales of hydroelectric power to the U.S.
"I know that a lot of money, billions have been invested on this line. And if the connection line is not done, then of course this will be sitting here, not gaining any revenue, which will affect every Métis in this province, given our Hydro bill's going to go up," Chartrand said.The NEB letter to Minister Carr requests that he "determine this matter in an expedited manner."
Manitoba Hydro spokesperson Bruce Owen said in an email that the Crown corporation will participate in whatever process, permit or certificate, the NEB takes.
"Manitoba Hydro does not have any information at this point in time that would change the estimated in-service date (May-June 2020) for the Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project," he said.
The federal government "is currently reviewing the NEB's recommendation to designate the project as subject to a certificate, which would result in public hearings," said Alexandre Deslongchamps, a spokesperson for Carr.
"Under the National Energy Board Act, an international power line requires either the approval by the NEB through a permit or approval by the Government of Canada by a certificate. Both must be issued by the NEB," he wrote in an email to CBC News.
By law, the certificate process is not to take longer than 15 months.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
