Spring is here, the sap is rising — and Ontario is giving away electricity.
That may come as news to householders, who had watched bills crawl steadily higher until the province took the edge off by awarding a 10 per cent discount starting January 1.
But the combination of low demand and gushing rivers has driven prices lower than zero at certain times of day over the past week.
For example:
On April 11, prices dipped below zero for five hours during the night, going as low as minus 12.2 cents a kilowatt hour.
The previous day, prices were also negative for five hours, dipping to minus 12.8 cents a kilowatt hour at the lowest.
The price fell to minus 2.2 cents a kilowatt hour for an hour on April 9.
The negative prices, unfortunately, do not mean that householders will get a refund or a credit on their next bill.
Residents are generally locked in to regulated prices, or time of use rates. Others are committed to fixed prices under retail contracts, which don't vary as market prices rise and fall.
But larger users, generally businesses, who are charged the market rate for electricity, can actually receive a credit for the power they use when prices are below zero.
So can neighbouring states and provinces, which trade power back and forth with Ontario.
Low prices are common at this time of year, says Terry Young, vice president of the Independent Electricity System Operator, which runs the province's power market.
Temperatures are moderate, so there's low demand for heating and air conditioning. Demand on April 11 was a low as 11,746 megawatts — less than half what it would be on a hot summer day or a cold winter night.
At the same time, the spring run-off has filled rivers and reservoirs so hydroelectric production is high. Nuclear plants run close to full capacity all the time and can't be scaled back, so surpluses can develop.
Surplus power and negative prices can be an opportunity for businesses that can boost production when the price plummets, said Young.
"There are customers who can respond to this," he said.
Wind is also increasingly a wild card in Ontario's power system. It wasn't a huge factor over the weekend, but windy weather did help push Ontario into a surplus position in January.
A report has warned that if no action is taken Ontario could have surplus power on its hands one day out of every seven by 2013. The surpluses would likely disappear within a few years, as the province starts shutting down nuclear reactors for major overhauls.
Delicate talks are currently under way with wind generators to see if there are ways to limit the flow of wind power onto the grid during periods of surplus.
Currently, all wind power flows onto the system and most generators receive a fixed price of 13.5 cents a kilowatt hour.
Other generators with contracts are also paid the contract price, despite the zero market price. To make up the difference, customers pay "global adjustment," a surcharge on the energy portion of their bill.
Texas EV Registration Fee adds a $200 annual charge under Senate Bill 505, offsetting lost gasoline tax revenue to the State Highway Fund, impacting electric vehicle owners at registration and renewals across Texas.
Key Points
A $200 yearly charge on electric vehicles to replace lost gasoline tax revenue and support Texas Highway Fund road work.
✅ $200 due at registration or renewal; $400 upfront on new EVs.
✅ Enacted by Senate Bill 505 to offset lost gasoline tax revenue.
Plano resident Tony Federico bought his Tesla five years ago in part because he hated spending lots of money on gas, and Supercharger billing changes have also influenced charging expenses. But that financial calculus will change slightly on Sept. 1, when Texas will start charging electric vehicle drivers an additional fee of $200 each year.
“It just seems like it’s arbitrary, with no real logic behind it,” said Federico, 51, who works in information technology. “But I’m going to have to pay it.”
Earlier this year, state lawmakers passed Senate Bill 505, which requires electric vehicle owners to pay the fee when they register a vehicle or renew their registration, even as fights for control over charging continue among utilities, automakers and retailers. It’s being imposed because lawmakers said EV drivers weren’t paying their fair share into a fund that helps cover road construction and repairs across Texas.
The cost will be especially high for those who purchase a new electric vehicle and have to pay two years of registration, or $400, up front.
Texas agencies estimated in a 2020 report that the state lost an average of $200 per year in federal and state gasoline tax dollars when an electric vehicle replaced a gas-fueled one. The agencies called the fee “the most straightforward” remedy.
Gasoline taxes go to the State Highway Fund, which the Texas Department of Transportation calls its “primary funding source.” Electric vehicle drivers don’t pay those taxes, though, because they don’t use gasoline.
Still, EV drivers do use the roads. And while electric vehicles make up a tiny portion of cars in Texas for now, that fraction is expected to increase, raising concerns about state power grids in the years ahead.
Many environmental and consumer advocates agreed with lawmakers that EV drivers should pay into the highway fund but argued over how much, and debates over fairer vehicle taxes are surfacing abroad as well.
Some thought the state should set the fee lower to cover only the lost state tax dollars, rather than both the state and federal money, because federal officials may devise their own scheme. Others argued the state should charge nothing because EVs help reduce greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change and can offer budget benefits for many owners.
“We urgently need to get more electric vehicles on the road,” said Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas. “Any increased fee could create an additional barrier for Texans, and particularly more moderate- to low-income Texans, to make that transition.”
Tom “Smitty” Smith, the executive director of the Texas Electric Transportation Resources Alliance, advocated for a fee based on how many miles a person drove their electric car, which would better mirror how the gas taxes are assessed.
Texas has a limited incentive that could offset the cost: It offers rebates of up to $2,500 for up to 2,000 new hydrogen fuel cell, electric or hybrid vehicles every two years. Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen’s Texas office director, recommended that the state expand the rebates, noting that state-level EV benefits can be significant.
In the Houston area, dealer Steven Wolf isn’t worried about the fee deterring potential customers from buying the electric Ford F-150 Lightning and Mustang Mach-E vehicles he sells. Electric cars are already more expensive than comparable gasoline-fueled cars, and charging networks compete for drivers, he said.
Vancouver Natural Gas Ban Reversal spotlights energy policy, electrification tradeoffs, heat pumps, emissions, grid reliability, and affordability, reshaping building codes and decarbonization pathways while inviting stakeholders to weigh practical constraints and climate goals.
Key Points
Vancouver ending its ban on natural gas in new homes to balance climate goals with reliability, costs, and technology.
✅ Balances emissions goals with reliability and affordability
✅ Impacts builders, homeowners, and energy infrastructure
✅ Spurs debate on electrification, heat pumps, and grid capacity
In a significant policy shift, Vancouver has decided to lift its ban on natural gas appliances in new homes, a move that marks a pivotal moment in the city's energy policy and environmental strategy. This decision, announced recently and following the city's Clean Energy Champion recognition for Bloedel upgrades, has sparked a broader conversation about the future of energy systems and the balance between environmental goals and practical energy needs. Stewart Muir, CEO of Resource Works, argues that this reversal should catalyze a necessary dialogue on energy choices, highlighting both the benefits and challenges of such a policy change.
Vancouver's original ban on natural gas appliances was part of a broader initiative aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting sustainability, including progress toward phasing out fossil fuels where feasible over time. The city had adopted stringent regulations to encourage the use of electric heat pumps and other low-carbon technologies in new residential buildings. This move was aligned with Vancouver’s ambitious climate goals, which include achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 and significantly cutting down on fossil fuel use.
However, the recent decision to reverse the ban reflects a growing recognition of the complexities involved in transitioning to entirely new energy systems. The city's administration acknowledged that while electric alternatives offer environmental benefits, they also come with challenges that can affect homeowners, builders, and the broader energy infrastructure, including options for bridging the electricity gap with Alberta to enhance regional reliability.
Stewart Muir argues that Vancouver’s policy shift is not just about natural gas appliances but represents a larger conversation about energy system choices and their implications. He suggests that the reversal of the ban provides an opportunity to address key issues related to energy reliability, affordability, and the practicalities of integrating new technologies, including electrified LNG options for industry within the province into existing systems.
One of the primary reasons behind the reversal is the recognition of the practical limitations and costs associated with transitioning to electric-only systems. For many homeowners and builders, natural gas appliances have long been a reliable and cost-effective option. The initial ban on these appliances led to concerns about increased construction costs and potential disruptions for homeowners who were accustomed to natural gas heating and cooking.
In addition to cost considerations, there are concerns about the reliability and efficiency of electric alternatives. Natural gas has been praised for its stable energy supply and efficient performance, especially in colder climates where electric heating systems might struggle to maintain consistent temperatures or fully utilize Site C's electricity under peak demand. By reversing the ban, Vancouver acknowledges that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be suitable for every situation, particularly when considering diverse housing needs and energy demands.
Muir emphasizes that the reversal of the ban should prompt a broader discussion about how to balance environmental goals with practical energy needs. He argues that rather than enforcing a blanket ban on specific technologies, it is crucial to explore a range of solutions that can effectively address climate objectives while accommodating the diverse requirements of different communities and households.
The debate also touches on the role of technological innovation in achieving sustainability goals. As energy technologies continue to evolve, renewable electricity is coming on strong and new solutions and advancements could potentially offer more efficient and environmentally friendly alternatives. The conversation should include exploring these innovations and considering how they can be integrated into existing energy systems to support long-term sustainability.
Moreover, Muir advocates for a more inclusive approach to energy policy that involves engaging various stakeholders, including residents, businesses, and energy experts. A collaborative approach can help identify practical solutions that address both environmental concerns and the realities of everyday energy use.
In the broader context, Vancouver’s decision reflects a growing trend in cities and regions grappling with energy transitions. Many urban centers are evaluating their energy policies and considering adjustments based on new information and emerging technologies. The key is to find a balance that supports climate goals such as 2050 greenhouse gas targets while ensuring that energy systems remain reliable, affordable, and adaptable to changing needs.
As Vancouver moves forward with its revised policy, it will be important to monitor the outcomes and assess the impacts on both the environment and the community. The reversal of the natural gas ban could serve as a case study for other cities facing similar challenges and could provide valuable insights into how to navigate the complexities of energy transitions.
In conclusion, Vancouver’s decision to reverse its ban on natural gas appliances in new homes is a significant development that opens the door for a critical dialogue about energy system choices. Stewart Muir’s call for a broader conversation emphasizes the need to balance environmental ambitions with practical considerations, such as cost, reliability, and technological advancements. As cities continue to navigate their energy futures, finding a pragmatic and inclusive approach will be essential in achieving both sustainability and functionality in energy systems.
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.
Germany's Joint Onshore Wind and Solar Tender invites 200 MW bids in an EEG auction, with PV and onshore wind competing on price per MWh, including grid integration costs and network fees under BNA rules.
Key Points
A BNA-run 200 MW EEG auction where PV and onshore wind compete on price per MWh, including grid integration costs.
✅ 200 MW cap; minimum project size 750 kW
✅ Max subsidy 87.50 per MWh; bids include network costs
✅ Solar capped at 10-20 MW; wind requires prior approval
Germany's Federal Network Agency (BNA) has launched its second joint onshore wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) tender, with a total capacity of 200 MW.
A maximum guaranteed subsidy payment has been set at 87.50 per MWh for both energy sources, which BNA says will have to compete against each other for the lowest price of electricity. According to auction rules, all projects must have a minimum of 750 kW.
The auction is due to be completed on 2 November.
The network regulator has capped solar projects at 10 MW, though this has been extended to 20 MW in some districts, amid calls to remove barriers to PV at the federal level. Onshore wind projects did not receive any such restrictions, though they require approval from Federal Immission Control three weeks prior to the bid date of 11 Octobe
Bids also require network and system integration costs to be included, and similar solicitations have been heavily subscribed, as an over-subscribed Duke Energy solar solicitation in the US market illustrates.
According to Germanys Renewable Energy Act (EEG), two joint onshore wind and solar auctions must take place each year between 2018 and 2021. After this, the government will review the scheme and decide whether to continue it beyond 2021.
The first tender, conducted in April, saw the entire 200 MW capacity given to solar PV projects, reflecting a broader solar power boost in Germany during the energy crisis. Of the 32 contracts awarded, value varied from 39.60 per MWh to 57.60 per MWh. Among the winning bids were five projects in agricultural and grassland sites in Bavaria, totalling 31 MW, and three in Baden-Wrttemberg at 17 MW.
According to the Agency, the joint tender scheme was initiated in an attempt to determine the financial support requirements for wind and solar in technology-specific auctions, however, solar powers sole win in the April auction meant it was met with criticism, even as clean energy accounts for 50% of Germany's electricity today.
The heads of the Federal Solar Industry Association (BSW-Solar) and German Wind Energy Association (BWE) saying the joint tender scheme is unsuitable for the build-out of the two technologies.
A BWE spokesman previously stressed the companys rejection of competition between wind and solar, saying: It is not clear how this could contribute to an economically meaningful balanced energy mix,
Technologies that are in various stages of development must not enter into direct competition with each other. Otherwise, innovation and development potential will be compromised.
Similarly, BSW-Solar president Carsten Krnig said: We are happy for the many solar winners, but consider the experiment a failure. The auction results prove the excellent price-performance ratio of new solar power plants, as solar-plus-storage is cheaper than conventional power in Germany, but not the suitability of joint tenders.
Puerto Rico Power Restoration advances as PREPA, FEMA, and the Army Corps rebuild the grid after Hurricane Maria; 75% of customers powered, amid privatization debate, Whitefish contract fallout, and a continuing island-wide boil-water advisory.
Key Points
Effort to rebuild Puerto Rico's grid and restore power, led by PREPA with FEMA support after Hurricane Maria.
✅ 75.35% of customers have power; 90.8% grid generating
✅ PREPA, FEMA, and Army Corps lead restoration work
Nearly six months after Hurricane Maria decimated Puerto Rico, the island's electricity has been restored to 75 percent capacity, according to its utility company, a contrast to California power shutdowns implemented for different reasons.
The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority said Sunday that 75.35 percent of customers now have electricity. It added that 90.8 percent of the electrical grid, already anemic even before the Sept. 20 storm barrelled through the island, is generating power again, though demand dynamics can vary widely as seen in Spain's power demand during lockdowns.
Thousands of power restoration personnel made up of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), industry workers from the mainland, and the Army Corps of Engineers have made marked progress in recent weeks, even as California power shutoffs highlight grid risks elsewhere.
Despite this, 65 people in shelters and an island-wide boil water advisory is still in effect even though almost 100 percent of Puerto Ricans have access to drinking water, local government records show.
The issue of power became controversial after Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rossello recently announced plans to privatize PREPA after it chose to allocate a $300 million power restoration contract to Whitefish, a Montana-based company with only a few staffers, rather than put it through the mutual-aid network of public utilities usually called upon to coordinate power restoration after major disasters, and unlike investor-owned utilities overseen by regulators such as the Florida PSC on the mainland.
That contract was nixed and Whitefish stopped working in Puerto Rico after FEMA raised "significant concerns" over the procurement process, scrutiny mirrored by the fallout from Taiwan's widespread outage where the economic minister resigned.
Hinkley Point C dome lift marks a nuclear reactor milestone in Somerset, as EDF used Big Carl crane to place a 245-tonne steel roof, enabling 2027 startup amid costs, delays, and precision indoor welding.
Key Points
A 245-tonne dome lifted onto Hinkley Point C's first reactor, finishing the roof and enabling fit-out for a 2027 startup.
✅ 245-tonne steel dome lifted by Big Carl onto 44m-high reactor
✅ Indoor welding avoided weather defects seen at Flamanville
✅ Cost now £33bn; first power targeted by end of 2027
Engineers have lifted a steel roof onto a building which will house the first of two nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset.
Hundreds of people helped with the delicate operation to get the 245-tonne steel dome into position.
It means the first reactor can be installed next year, ready to be switched on in June 2027.
Engineers at EDF said the "challenging job" was completed in just over an hour.
They first broke the ground on the new nuclear station in March 2017. Now, some 10,000 people work on what is Europe's largest building site.
They have faced delays from Covid restrictions and other recent setbacks, and the budget has doubled to £33bn, so getting the roof on the first of the two reactor buildings is a big deal.
EDF's nuclear island director Simon Parsons said it was a "fantastic night".
"Lifting the dome into place is a celebration of all the work done by a fantastic team. The smiles on people's faces this morning were something else.
"Now we can get on with the fitting of equipment, pipes and cables, including the first reactor which is on site and ready to be installed next year."
Nuclear minister Andrew Bowie hailed the "major milestone" in the building project, citing its role in the UK's green industrial revolution ambitions.
He said: "This is a key part of the UK Government's plans to revitalise nuclear."
But many still question whether Hinkley Point C will be worth all the money, especially after Hitachi's project freeze in Britain, with Roy Pumfrey of the Stop Hinkley campaign describing the project as "shockingly bad value".
Why lift the roof on?
The steel dome is bigger than the one on St Paul's Cathedral in London.
To lift it onto the 44-metre-high reactor building, they needed the world's largest land-based crane, dubbed Big Carl by engineers.
So why not just build the roof on top of the building?
The answer lies in a remote corner of Normandy in France, near a village called Flamanville.
EDF has been building a nuclear reactor there since 2007, ten years before they started in west Somerset.
The project is now a decade behind schedule and has still not been approved by French regulators.
Why? Because of cracks found in the precision welding on the roof of the reactor building.
Engineers have decided welding outside, exposed to wind and rain, compromised the high standards needed for a nuclear reactor.
So in Somerset they built a temporary workshop, which looks like a fair sized building itself. All the welding has been done inside, and then the completed roof was lifted into place.
Is it on time or on budget?
No, neither. When Hinkley C was first approved a decade ago, EDF said it would cost £14bn.
Four years later, in 2017, they finally started construction. By now the cost had risen to £19.5bn, and EDF said the plant would be finished by the end of 2025.
Today, the cost has risen to £33bn, and it is now hoped Hinkley C will produce electricity by the end of 2027.
"Nobody believes it will be done by 2027," said campaigner Roy Pumfrey.
"The costs keep rising, and the price of Hinkley's electricity will only get dearer," they added.
On the other hand, the increase in costs is not a problem for British energy bill payers, or the UK government.
EDF agreed to pay the full cost of construction, including any increases.
When I met Grant Shapps, then the UK Energy Secretary, at the site in April, he shrugged off the cost increases.
He said: "I think we should all be rather pleased it is not the British tax payer - it is France and EDF who are paying."
In return, the UK government agreed a set rate for Hinkley's power, called the Strike Price, back in 2013. The idea was this would guarantee the income from Hinkley Point for 35 years, allowing investors to get their money back.
Will it be worth the money?
Back in 2013, the Strike Price was set at £92.50 for each megawatt hour of power. At the time, the wholesale price of electricity was around £50/MWh, so Hinkley C looked expensive.
But since then, global shocks like the war in Ukraine have increased the cost of power substantially, and advocates argue next-gen nuclear could deliver smaller, cheaper, safer designs.
