All 10 turbines at a wind farm in eastern P.E.I. are back in operation for the first time since March, when six of them were taken offline due to problems in their gear boxes.
There were delays in getting the turbines back in operation.
The $47 million project at East Point had only been spinning for a little over a year when the problem was discovered. Originally, the province thought repairs would be done two months ago, but testing on the final repair was only recently completed.
In the spring, strong winds prevented work at the top of the 50-metre towers. Spring weight restrictions on the roads also delayed Vestas, the company that built and repaired the towers. It had to wait for the restrictions to be lifted before it could move repair equipment.
Vestas paid for the repairs under warranty, but that's not the only cost to consider. A lot of electricity has been lost since while the turbine stood idle for five months, but most of that is also covered under the warranty.
"With the software, you're able to calculate what the expected wind would be at that time, and to tell you how much power you should be generating," Ron Estabrooks, energy adviser for the province, told CBC News.
Vestas will pay the province for 95 per cent of the power that would have been generated. P.E.I. arranged this special agreement with Vestas in a five-year warranty and maintenance package that's costing taxpayers a million dollars a year.
"In this case, I would say it was a million dollars well-spent," said Estabrooks.
The cheque from Vestas is expected in the next couple of months, but Estabrooks said people will have to wait for official financial reports to learn what the amount is.
Ontario Electricity Rates update: OEB sets time-of-use and tiered pricing for residential customers, with kWh charges for peak, mid-peak, and off-peak periods reflecting COVID-19 impacts on demand, supply costs, and pricing.
Key Points
Ontario Electricity Rates are OEB-set time-of-use and tiered prices that set per-kWh costs for residential customers.
✅ Tiered: 12.6 cents/kWh up to 1000 kWh, then 14.6 cents/kWh
✅ Average 700 kWh home pays about $2.24 more per month
Energy bills for the typical Ontario home are going up by about two per cent with fixed pricing coming to an end on Nov. 1, the Ontario Energy Board says.
The province's electricity regulator has released new time-of-use pricing and says the rate for the average residential customer using 700 kWh per month will increase by about $2.24.
The change comes as Ontario stretches into its eight month of the COVID-19 pandemic with new case counts reaching levels higher than ever seen before.
Time-of-use pricing had been scrapped for residential bills for much for the pandemic with a single fixed COVID-19 hydro rate set for all hours of the day. The move, which came into effect June 1, was meant "to support families, small business and farms while Ontario plans for the safe and gradual reopening of the province," the OEB said at the time.
Fixed pricing meant customers' bills reflected how much power they used, rather than when they used it. Customers were charged 12.8 cents/kWh under the COVID-19 recovery rate no matter their time of use.
Beginning November, the province says customers can choose between time-of-use and tiered pricing options. Rates for time-of-use plans will be 21.7 cents/kWh during peak hours, 15 cents/kWh for mid-peak use and 10.5 cents/kWh for off-peak use.
Customers choosing tiered pricing will pay 12.6 cents/kWh for the first 1000 kWh each month and then 14.6 cents/kWh for any power used beyond that.
The energy board says the increase in pricing reflects "a combination of factors, including those associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, that have affected demand, supply costs and prices in the summer and fall of 2020."
Asked for his reaction to the move Tuesday, Premier Doug Ford said, "I hate it," adding the province inherited an energy "mess" from the previous Liberal government and are "chipping away at it."
Doug Ford's Hydro One firing vow targets CEO pay, the utility's board, and privatization, amid Ontario politics over electricity rates, governance, and control, raising questions about legal tools, contracts, and impacts on customers and taxpayers.
Key Points
Ford vows to oust Hydro One's CEO and board to curb pay and signal rate restraint, subject to legal and governance limits.
✅ Province lacks direct control post-privatization
✅ Possible board removals to influence executive pay
✅ Impact on rates, contracts, and shareholders unclear
Ontario PC Leader Doug Ford is vowing to fire the head of Hydro One, and its entire board if he's elected premier in June.
Ford made the announcement, calling President and CEO Mayo Schmidt, Premier "Kathleen Wynne's $6-Million dollar man," referring to his yearly salary and bonuses, which now add up to $6.2 million.
"This board and this CEO are laughing themselves to the bank," Ford said.
However, it's unclear how Ford would do that since the province does not control the company anymore.
"We don't have the ability to go out and say we are firing the CEO at Hydro One," PC energy critic Todd Smith said while speaking to reporters after Ford's remarks.
#google#
However, he said "we do have tools at our disposal in the tool box. The unfortunate thing is that Kathleen Wynne and the Liberals have just let those tools sit there for the last couple of years and [have] not taken action on things like this."
Smith declined to provide details about what those tools are, but suggested Ford would have the right to fire Hydro's board.
He said that would send a message "that we're not going to accept these salaries."
Smith says the Ontario gov still has the right to fire Hydro One board. What about their contracts? Pay them out? Smith says they don't know the details of people's contacts
We will not engage in politics,' Hydro One says
A Hydro One spokesperson said the amount customers pay to compensate the CEO's salary is the same as before privatization — two cents on each monthly bill.
"We will not engage in politics, however our customers deserve the facts," said the email statement to CBC Toronto.
"Nearly 80 per cent of the total executive compensation package is paid for by shareholders."
Ontario NDP MPP Peter Tabuns says Ford is pro-privatization, and that won't help those struggling with high hydro bills. (Michelle Siu/The Canadian Press)
Peter Tabuns, the NDP's energy critic, said his government would aim to retake public control of Hydro One to cap CEO pay and control the CEO's "outrageous salary."
But while he shares Ford's goal of cutting Schmidt's pay, Tabuns blasted what he believes would be the PC leader's approach.
"Doug Ford has no idea how to reign [sic] in the soaring hydro bills that Ontario families are facing — in fact, if his threats of further privatization include hydro, he'll drive bills and executive salaries ever higher," he said in an email statement.
The only plan we've heard from Doug Ford so far is firing people and laying off people.- Glenn Thibeault, Energy Minister
Tabuns says his party would aim to cut hydro bills by 30 per cent.
Meanwhile, Liberal Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault said Ford's plan will do nothing to address the actual issue of keeping hydro rates low, comparing his statement Thursday to the rhetoric and actions of U.S. President Donald Trump.
"The only plan we've heard from Doug Ford so far is firing people and laying off people," Thibeault said.
"What I'm seeing a very strong prevalence to is the person running the White House. He's been doing a lot of firing as well and that's not been working out so well for them."
Hydro prices have shot up in recent years prompting criticism from across Ontario. Wynne made the controversial move of privatizing part of the utility beginning in 2015.
By Oct. 2017, the Ontario Liberal government's "Fair Hydro Plan" had brought down the average household electricity bill by a 25% rate cut from the peak it hit in the summer of 2016. The Wynne government has also committed to keep rate increases below inflation for the next four years, but admits bills will rise significantly in the decade that follows as a recovery rate could drive costs higher.
Ford blasted the government's moves during a Toronto news conference, echoing calls to scrap the Fair Hydro Plan and review other options.
"The party's over with the tax payer's money, we're going to start respecting the tax payers," Ford said, repeatedly saying the money spent on Hydro One salaries is "morally indefensible."
UK Hydrogen Storage Caverns enable long-duration, low-carbon electricity balancing, storing surplus wind and solar power as green hydrogen in salt formations to enhance grid reliability, energy security, and net zero resilience by 2035 and 2050.
Key Points
They are salt caverns storing green hydrogen to balance wind and solar, stabilizing a low-carbon UK grid.
✅ Stores surplus wind and solar as green hydrogen in salt caverns
✅ Enables long-duration, low-carbon grid balancing and security
✅ Complements wind and solar; reduces dependence on flexible CCS
The U.K. government must kick-start the construction of large-scale hydrogen storage facilities if it is to meet its pledge that all electricity will come from low-carbon electricity sources by 2035 and reach legally binding net zero targets by 2050, according to a report by the Royal Society.
The report, "Large-scale electricity storage," published Sep. 8, examines a wide variety of ways to store surplus wind and solar generated electricity—including green hydrogen, advanced compressed air energy storage (ACAES), ammonia, and heat—which will be needed when Great Britain's electricity generation is dominated by volatile wind and solar power.
It concludes that large scale electricity storage is essential to mitigate variations in wind and sunshine, particularly long-term variations in the wind, and to keep the nation's lights on. Storing most of the surplus as hydrogen, in salt caverns, would be the cheapest way of doing this.
The report, based on 37 years of weather data, finds that in 2050 up to 100 Terawatt-hours (TWh) of storage will be needed, which would have to be capable of meeting around a quarter of the U.K.'s current annual electricity demand. This would be equivalent to more than 5,000 Dinorwig pumped hydroelectric dams. Storage on this scale, which would require up to 90 clusters of 10 caverns, is not possible with batteries or pumped hydro.
Storage requirements on this scale are not currently foreseen by the government, and the U.K.'s energy transition faces supply delays. Work on constructing these caverns should begin immediately if the government is to have any chance of meeting its net zero targets, the report states.
Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith FRS, lead author of the report, said, "The need for long-term storage has been seriously underestimated. Demand for electricity is expected to double by 2050 with the electrification of heat, transport, and industrial processing, as well as increases in the use of air conditioning, economic growth, and changes in population.
"It will mainly be met by wind and solar generation. They are the cheapest forms of low-carbon electricity generation, but are volatile—wind varies on a decadal timescale, so will have to be complemented by large scale supply from energy storage or other sources."
The only other large-scale low-carbon sources are nuclear power, gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS), and bioenergy without or with CCS (BECCS). While nuclear and gas with CCS are expected to play a role, they are expensive, especially if operated flexibly.
Sir Peter Bruce, vice president of the Royal Society, said, "Ensuring our future electricity supply remains reliable and resilient will be crucial for our future prosperity and well-being. An electricity system with significant wind and solar generation is likely to offer the lowest cost electricity but it is essential to have large-scale energy stores that can be accessed quickly to ensure Great Britain's energy security and sovereignty."
Combining hydrogen with ACAES, or other forms of storage that are more efficient than hydrogen, could lower the average cost of electricity overall, and would lower the required level of wind power and solar supply.
There are currently three hydrogen storage caverns in the U.K., which have been in use since 1972, and the British Geological Survey has identified the geology for ample storage capacity in Cheshire, Wessex and East Yorkshire. Appropriate, novel business models and market structures will be needed to encourage construction of the large number of additional caverns that will be needed, the report says.
Sir Chris observes that, although nuclear, hydro and other sources are likely to play a role, Britain could in principle be powered solely by wind power and solar, supported by hydrogen, and some small-scale storage provided, for example, by batteries, that can respond rapidly and to stabilize the grid. While the cost of electricity would be higher than in the last decade, we anticipate it would be much lower than in 2022, he adds.
COVID-19 Impact on U.S. Electricity Consumption shows commercial and industrial demand dropped as residential use rose, with flattened peak loads, weekday-weekend convergence, Texas hourly data, and energy demand as a real-time economic indicator.
Key Points
It reduced commercial and industrial demand while raising residential use, shifting peaks and weekday patterns.
✅ Commercial electricity down 12%; industrial down 14% in Q2 2020
✅ Residential use up 10% amid work-from-home and lockdowns
✅ Peaks flattened; weekday-weekend loads converged in Texas
This is an important turning point for the United States. We have a long road ahead. But one of the reasons I’m optimistic about Biden-Harris is that we will once again have an administration that believes in science.
To embrace this return to science, I want to write today about a fascinating new working paper by Tufts economist Steve Cicala.
Professor Cicala has been studying the effect of Covid on electricity consumption since back in March, when the Wall Street Journal picked up his work documenting an 18% decrease in electricity consumption in Italy.
The new work, focused on the United States, is particularly compelling because it uses data that allows him to distinguish between residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, against a backdrop of declining U.S. electricity sales over recent years.
Fact #1: Firms Are Using Less U.S. commercial electricity consumption fell 12% during the second quarter of 2020. U.S. industrial electricity consumption fell 14% over the same period.
This makes sense. The second quarter was by some measures, the worst quarter for the U.S. economy in over 145 years!
Economic activity shrank. Schools closed. Offices closed. Factories closed. Restaurants closed. Malls closed. Even health care offices closed as patients delayed going to the dentist and other routine care. All this means less heating and cooling, less lighting, less refrigeration, less power for computers and other office equipment, less everything.
The decrease in the industrial sector is a little more surprising. My impression had been that the industrial sector had not fallen as far as commercial, but amid broader disruptions in coal and nuclear power that strained parts of the energy economy, the patterns for both sectors are quite similar with the decline peaking in May and then partially rebounding by July. The paper also shows that areas with higher unemployment rates experienced larger declines in both sectors.
Fact #2: Households Are Using More While firms are using less, households are using more. U.S. residential electricity consumption increased 10% during the second quarter of 2020. Consumption surged during March, April, and May, a reflection of the lockdown lifestyle many adopted, and then leveled off in June and July – with much less of the rebound observed on the commercial/industrial side.
This pattern makes sense, too. In Professor Cicala’s words, “people are spending an inordinate amount of time at home”. Many of us switched over to working from home almost immediately, and haven’t looked back. This means more air conditioning, more running the dishwasher, more CNN (especially last week), more Zoom, and so on.
The paper also examines the correlates of the decline. Areas in the U.S. where more people can work from home experienced larger increases. Unemployment rates, however, are almost completely uncorrelated with the increase.
Fact #3: Firms are Less Peaky The paper next turns to a novel dataset from Texas, where Texas grid reliability is under active discussion, that makes it possible to measure hourly electricity consumption by sector.
As the figure above illustrates, the biggest declines in commercial/industrial electricity consumption have occurred Monday through Friday between 9AM and 5PM.
The dashed line shows the pattern during 2019. Notice the large spikes in electricity consumption during business hours. The solid line shows the pattern during 2020. Much smaller spikes during business hours.
Fact #4: Everyday is Like Sunday Finally, we have what I would like to nominate as the “Energy Figure of the Year”.
Again, start with the pattern for 2019, reflected by the dashed line. Prior to Covid, Texas households used a lot more electricity on Saturdays and Sundays.
Then along comes Covid, and turned every day into the weekend. Residential electricity consumption in Texas during business hours Monday-Friday is up 16%(!).
In the pattern for 2020, it isn’t easy to distinguish weekends from weekdays. If you feel like weekdays and weekends are becoming a big blur – you are not alone.
Conclusion Researchers are increasingly thinking about electricity consumption as a real-time indicator of economic activity, even as flat electricity demand complicates utility planning and investment. This is an intriguing idea, but Professor Cicala’s new paper shows that it is important to look sector-by-sector.
While commercial and industrial consumption indeed seem to measure the strength of an economy, residential consumption has been sharply countercylical – increasing exactly when people are not at work and not at school.
These large changes in behavior are specific to the pandemic. Still, with the increased blurring of home and non-home activities we may look back on 2020 as a key turning point in how we think about these three sectors of the economy.
More broadly, Professor Cicala’s paper highlights the value of social science research. We need facts, data, and yes, science, if we are to understand the economy and craft effective policies on energy insecurity and shut-offs as well.
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.
European Energy Crisis shocks markets as Russia slashes gas via Nord Stream, spiking prices and triggering rationing, LNG imports, storage shortfalls, and emergency measures to secure energy security before a harsh winter.
Key Points
Europe-wide gas shock from reduced Russian flows drives price spikes, rationing risk, LNG reliance, and emergency action.
✅ Nord Stream cuts deepen supply insecurity and storage gaps
✅ LNG imports rise but terminal capacity and shipping are tight
As Russian gas cutoffs upend European energy security, the continent is struggling to cope with what experts say is one of its worst-ever energy crises—and it could still get much worse.
For months, European leaders have been haunted by the prospect of losing Russia’s natural gas supply, which accounts for some 40 percent of European imports and has been a crucial energy lifeline for the continent. That nightmare is now becoming a painful reality as Moscow slashes its flows in retaliation for Europe’s support for Ukraine, dramatically increasing energy prices and forcing many countries to resort to emergency plans, including emergency measures to limit electricity prices in some cases, and as backup energy suppliers such as Norway and North Africa are failing to step up.
“This is the most extreme energy crisis that has ever occurred in Europe,” said Alex Munton, an expert on global gas markets at Rapidan Energy Group, a consultancy. “Europe [is] looking at the very real prospect of not having sufficient gas when it’s most needed, which is during the coldest part of the year.”
“Prices have shot through the roof,” added Munton, who noted that European natural gas prices—nearly $50 per MMBTu—have eclipsed U.S. price rises by nearly tenfold, and that rolling back electricity prices is tougher than it appears in the current market. “That is an extraordinarily high price to be paying for natural gas, and really there is no immediate way out from here.”
Many officials and energy experts worry that the crisis will only deepen after Nord Stream 1, the largest gas pipeline from Russia to Europe, is taken down for scheduled maintenance this week. Although the pipeline is supposed to be under repair for only 10 days, the Kremlin’s history of energy blackmail and weaponization has stoked fears that Moscow won’t turn it back on—leaving heavily reliant European countries in the lurch. (Russia’s second pipeline to Germany, Nord Stream 2, was killed in February as Russian President Vladimir Putin prepared to invade Ukraine, leaving Nord Stream 1 as the biggest direct gas link between Russia and Europe’s biggest economy.)
“Everything is possible. Everything can happen,” German economy minister Robert Habeck told Deutschlandfunk on Saturday. “It could be that the gas flows again, maybe more than before. It can also be the case that nothing comes.”
That would spell trouble for the upcoming winter, when demand for energy surges and having sufficient natural gas is necessary for heating. European countries typically rely on the summer months to refill their gas storage facilities. And at a time of war, when the continent’s future gas supply is uncertain, having that energy cushion is especially crucial.
If Russia’s prolonged disruptions continue, experts warn of a difficult winter: one of potential rationing, industrial shutdowns, and even massive economic dislocation. British officials, who just a few months ago warned of soaring power bills for consumers, are now warning of even worse, despite a brief fall to pre-Ukraine war levels in gas prices earlier in the year.
Europe could face a “winter of discontent,” said Helima Croft, a managing director at RBC Capital Markets. “Rationing, industrial shut-ins—all of that is looming.”
Unrest has already been brewing, with strikes erupting across the continent as households struggle under the pressures of spiraling costs of living and inflationary pressures. Some of this discontent has also had knock-on effects in the energy market. In Norway, the European Union’s biggest supplier of natural gas after Russia, mass strikes in the oil and gas industries last week forced companies to shutter production, sending further shockwaves throughout Europe.
European countries are at risk of descending into “very, very strong conflict and strife because there is no energy,” Frans Timmermans, the vice president of the European Commission, told the Guardian. “Putin is using all the means he has to create strife in our societies, so we have to brace ourselves for a very difficult period.”
The pain of the crisis, however, is perhaps being felt most clearly in Germany, which has been forced to turn to a number of energy-saving measures, including rationing heated water and closing swimming pools. To cope with the crunch, Berlin has already entered the second phase of its three-stage emergency gas plan; last week, it also moved to bail out its energy giants amid German utility troubles that have been financially slammed by Russian cutoffs.
But it’s not just Germany. “This is happening all across Europe,” said Olga Khakova, an expert on European energy security at the Atlantic Council, who noted that France has also announced plans to nationalize the EDF power company as it buckles under mounting economic losses, and the EU outlines gas price cap strategies to temper volatility. “The challenging part is how much can these governments provide in support to their energy consumers, to these companies? And what is that breaking point?”
The situation has also complicated many countries’ climate goals, even as some call it a wake-up call to ditch fossil fuels for Europe. In late June, Germany, Italy, Austria, and the Netherlands announced they would restart old coal power plants as they grapple with shrinking supplies.
The potential outcomes that European nations are grappling with reveal how this crisis is occurring on a scale that has only been seen in times of war, Munton said. In the worst-case scenario, “we’re talking about rationing gas supplies, and this is not something that Europe has had to contend with in any other time than the wartime,” he said. “That’s essentially where things have got to now. This is an energy war.”
They also underscore the long and painful battle that Europe will continue to face in weaning itself off Russian gas. Despite the continent’s eagerness to leave Moscow’s supply behind, experts say Europe will likely remain trapped in this spiraling crisis until it can develop the infrastructure for greater energy independence—and that could take years. U.S. gas, shipped by tanker, is one option, but that requires new terminals to receive the gas and U.S. energy impacts remain a factor for policymakers. New pipelines take even longer to build—and there isn’t a surfeit of eligible suppliers.
Until then, European leaders will continue to scramble to secure enough supplies—and can only hope for mild weather. The “worst-case scenario is people having to choose between eating and heating come winter,” Croft said.
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.
