Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) plans to set up as many as 200 recharging stations for electric cars around the Japanese capital next year, the Nikkei business daily reported.
But a TEPCO spokesman denied the report and said: "While it is not wrong that TEPCO has completed demonstration tests for devices that charge batteries, we do not at this time have plans to take the initiative in setting up charging locations within the city."
TEPCO, Japan's largest utility, has developed a device that powers an electric car to run 40 km (25 miles) after a five-minute charge and 60 km (37 miles) after a 10-minute charge, the spokesman said.
Car makers such as Nissan Motor and Mitsubishi Motors are preparing to roll out electric vehicles in coming years, amid soaring gasoline fuel prices and concerns about global warming.
Car dealers selling Mitsubishi Motors and Subaru cars made by Fuji Heavy Industries have agreed to have TEPCO's recharging stations at their shops, while supermarket retailer Aeon plans to host them at some outlets.
It said TEPCO would also include carparks, convenience stores, banks and post offices in the charging network it plans to set up in the financial year to March 2010, with the aim of expanding the number of stations to around 1,000 in three years or so.
Northvolt Montreal EV Battery Plant advances as a Quebec clean energy hub, leveraging hydroelectric power to supply EV batteries, strengthen North American supply chains, and support automakers' electrification with sustainable manufacturing and regional distribution.
Key Points
A Quebec-based EV battery facility using hydroelectric power to scale sustainable production for North America.
✅ Powered by Quebec hydro for lower-carbon cell manufacturing
✅ Strengthens North American EV supply chain resilience
✅ Creates local jobs, R&D, and advanced manufacturing skills
Northvolt, a prominent player in the electric vehicle (EV) battery industry, has reaffirmed its commitment to proceed with its battery plant project near Montreal as originally planned. This development marks a significant step forward in Northvolt's expansion strategy and signals confidence in Canada's role in the global EV market.
The decision to move forward with the EV battery plant project near Montreal underscores Northvolt's strategic vision to establish a strong foothold in North America's burgeoning electric vehicle sector. The plant is poised to play a crucial role in meeting the growing demand for sustainable battery solutions as automakers accelerate their transition towards electrification.
Located strategically in Quebec, a province known for its abundant hydroelectric power and supportive government policies towards clean energy initiatives, including major Canada-Quebec investments in battery assembly, the battery plant project aligns with Canada's commitment to promoting green technology and reducing carbon emissions. By leveraging Quebec's renewable energy resources, Northvolt aims to produce batteries with a lower carbon footprint compared to traditional manufacturing processes.
The EV battery plant is expected to contribute significantly to the local economy by creating jobs, stimulating economic growth, and fostering technological innovation in the region, much as a Niagara Region battery plant is catalyzing development in Ontario. As Northvolt progresses with its plans, collaboration with local stakeholders, including government agencies, educational institutions, and industry partners, will be pivotal in ensuring the project's success and maximizing its positive impact on the community.
Northvolt's decision to advance the battery plant project near Montreal also reflects broader trends in the global battery manufacturing landscape. With increasing emphasis on sustainability and supply chain resilience, companies like Northvolt are investing in diversified production capabilities, including projects such as a $1B B.C. battery plant, to meet regional market demands and reduce dependency on overseas suppliers.
Moreover, the EV battery plant project near Montreal represents a milestone in Canada's efforts to strengthen its position in the global electric vehicle supply chain, with EV assembly deals helping put the country in the race. By attracting investments from leading companies like Northvolt, Canada aims to build a robust ecosystem for electric vehicle manufacturing and innovation, driving economic competitiveness and environmental stewardship.
The plant's proximity to key markets in North America further enhances its strategic value, enabling efficient distribution of batteries to automotive manufacturers across the continent. This geographical advantage positions Northvolt to capitalize on the growing demand for electric vehicles in Canada, the United States, and beyond, supporting Canada-U.S. collaboration on supply chains and market growth.
Looking ahead, Northvolt's commitment to advancing the EV battery plant project near Montreal underscores its long-term vision and dedication to sustainable development. As the global electric vehicle market continues to evolve, alongside the U.S. auto sector's pivot to EVs, investments in battery manufacturing infrastructure will play a critical role in shaping the industry's future landscape and accelerating the adoption of clean transportation technologies.
In conclusion, Northvolt's affirmation to proceed with the EV battery plant project near Montreal represents a significant milestone in Canada's transition towards sustainable mobility solutions. By harnessing Quebec's renewable energy resources and fostering local partnerships, Northvolt aims to establish a state-of-the-art manufacturing facility that not only supports the growth of the electric vehicle sector but also contributes to Canada's leadership in clean technology innovation, bolstered by initiatives like Nova Scotia vehicle-to-grid pilots that strengthen grid readiness nationwide. As the project moves forward, its impact on economic growth, job creation, and environmental sustainability is expected to resonate positively both locally and globally.
Waste-to-Graphene uses flash joule heating to convert carbon-rich trash into turbostratic graphene for composites, asphalt, concrete, and flexible electronics, delivering scalable, low-cost, high-quality material from food scraps, plastics, and tires with minimal processing.
Key Points
A flash heating method converting waste carbon into turbostratic graphene for scalable, low-cost industrial uses.
✅ Converts food scraps, plastics, and tires into graphene
✅ Produces turbostratic flakes that disperse well in composites
✅ Scalable, low-cost process via flash joule heating
Science doesn’t usually take after fairy tales. But Rumpelstiltskin, the magical imp who spun straw into gold, would be impressed with the latest chemical wizardry. Researchers at Rice University report today in Nature that they can zap virtually any source of solid carbon, from food scraps to old car tires, and turn it into graphene—sheets of carbon atoms prized for applications ranging from high-strength plastic to flexible electronics, and debates over 5G electricity use continue to evolve. Current techniques yield tiny quantities of picture-perfect graphene or up to tons of less prized graphene chunks; the new method already produces grams per day of near-pristine graphene in the lab, and researchers are now scaling it up to kilograms per day.
“This work is pioneering from a scientific and practical standpoint” as it promises to make graphene cheap enough to use to strengthen asphalt or paint, says Ray Baughman, a chemist at the University of Texas, Dallas. “I wish I had thought of it.” The researchers have already founded a new startup company, Universal Matter, to commercialize their waste-to-graphene process, while others are digitizing the electrical system to modernize infrastructure.
With atom-thin sheets of carbon atoms arranged like chicken wire, graphene is stronger than steel, conducts electricity and heat better than copper, and can serve as an impermeable barrier preventing metals from rusting, while advances such as superconducting cables aim to cut grid losses. But since its 2004 discovery, high-quality graphene—either single sheets or just a few stacked layers—has remained expensive to make and purify on an industrial scale. That’s not a problem for making diminutive devices such as high-speed transistors and efficient light-emitting diodes. But current techniques, which make graphene by depositing it from a vapor, are too costly for many high-volume applications. And higher throughput approaches, such as peeling graphene from chunks of the mineral graphite, produce flecks composed of up to 50 graphene layers that are not ideal for most applications.
Graphene comes in many forms. Single sheets, which are ideal for electronics and optics, can be grown using a method called chemical vapor deposition. But it produces only tiny amounts. For large volumes, companies commonly use a technique called liquid exfoliation. They start with chunks of graphite, which is just myriad stacked graphene layers. Then they use acids and solvents, as well as mechanical grinding, to shear off flakes. This approach typically produces tiny platelets each made up of 20 to 50 layers of graphene.
In 2014, James Tour, a chemist at Rice, and his colleagues found they could make a pure form of graphene—each piece just a few layers thick—by zapping a form of amorphous carbon called carbon black with a laser. Brief pulses heated the carbon to more than 3000 kelvins, snapping the bonds between carbon atoms; for comparison, researchers have also generated electricity from falling snow using triboelectric effects. As the cloud of carbon cooled, it coalesced into the most stable structure possible, graphene. But the approach still produced only tiny qualities and required a lot of energy.
Two years ago, Luong Xuan Duy, one of Tour’s graduate students, read that other researchers had created metal nanoparticles by zapping a material with electricity, creating the same brief blast of heat behind the success of the laser graphene approach. “I wondered if I could use that to heat a carbon source and produce graphene,” Duy says. So, he put a dash of carbon black in a clear glass vial and zapped it with 400 volts, similar in spirit to electrical weed zapping approaches in agriculture, for about 200 milliseconds. Initially he got junk. But after a bit of tweaking, he managed to create a bright yellowish white flash, indicating the temperature inside the vial was reaching about 3000 kelvins. Chemical tests revealed he had produced graphene.
It turned out to be a type of graphene that is ideal for bulk uses. As the carbon atoms condense to form graphene, they don’t have time to stack in a regular pattern, as they do in graphite. The result is a material known as turbostatic graphene, with graphene layers jumbled at all angles atop one another. “That’s a good thing,” Duy says. When added to water or other solvents, turbostatic graphene remains suspended instead of clumping up, allowing each fleck of the material to interact with whatever composite it’s added to.
“This will make it a very good material for applications,” says Monica Craciun, a materials physicist at the University of Exeter. In 2018, she and her colleagues reported that adding graphene to concrete more than doubled its compressive strength. Tour’s team saw much the same result. When they added just 0.05% by weight of their flash-produced graphene to concrete, the compressive strength rose 25%; graphene added to polydimethylsiloxane, a common plastic, boosted its strength by 250%.
As digital control spreads across energy networks, research to counter ransomware-driven blackouts is increasingly important for grid resilience.
Those results could reignite efforts to use graphene in a wide range of composites. Researchers in Italy reported recently that adding graphene to asphalt dramatically reduces its tendency to fracture and more than doubles its life span. Last year, Iterchimica, an Italian company, began to test a 250-meter stretch of road in Milan paved with graphene-spiked asphalt. Tests elsewhere have shown that adding graphene to paint dramatically improves corrosion resistance.
These applications would require high-quality graphene by the ton. Fortunately, the starting point for flash graphene could hardly be cheaper or more abundant: Virtually any organic matter, including coffee grounds, food scraps, old tires, and plastic bottles, can be vaporized to make the material. “We’re turning garbage into graphene,” Duy says.
Germany Energy Transition faces offshore wind expansion, grid bottlenecks, and North-South transmission delays, while Nord Stream 2 boosts Russian gas reliance and lignite coal persists amid a nuclear phaseout and rising re-dispatch costs.
Key Points
Germanys shift to renewables faces grid delays, boosting gas via Nord Stream 2 and extending lignite coal use.
✅ Offshore wind grows, but grid congestion curtails turbines.
✅ Nord Stream 2 expands Russian gas supply to German industry.
On a blazing hot August day on Germany’s Baltic Sea coast, a few hundred tourists skip the beach to visit the “Fascination Offshore Wind” exhibition, held in the port of Mukran at the Arkona wind park. They stand facing the sea, gawking at white fiberglass blades, which at 250 feet are longer than the wingspan of a 747 aircraft. Those blades, they’re told, will soon be spinning atop 60 wind-turbine towers bolted to concrete pilings driven deep into the seabed 20 miles offshore. By early 2019, Arkona is expected to generate 385 megawatts, enough electricity to power 400,000 homes.
“We really would like to give the public an idea of what we are going to do here,” says Silke Steen, a manager at Arkona. “To let them say, ‘Wow, impressive!’”
Had the tourists turned their backs to the sea and faced inland, they would have taken in an equally monumental sight, though this one isn’t on the day’s agenda: giant steel pipes coated in gray concrete, stacked five high and laid out in long rows on a stretch of dirt. The port manager tells me that the rows of 40-foot-long, 4-foot-thick pipes are so big that they can be seen from outer space. They are destined for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a colossus that, when completed next year, will extend nearly 800 miles from Russia to Germany, bringing twice the amount of gas that a current pipeline carries.
The two projects, whose cargo yards are within a few hundred feet of each other, provide a contrast between Germany’s dream of renewable energy and the political realities of cheap Russian gas. In 2010, Germany announced an ambitious goal of generating 80 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2050. In 2011, it doubled down on the commitment by deciding to shut down every last nuclear power plant in the country by 2022, as part of a broader coal and nuclear phaseout strategy embraced by policymakers. The German government has paid more than $600 billion to citizens and companies that generate solar and wind power. As a result, the generating capacity from renewable sources has soared: In 2017, a third of the nation’s electricity came from wind, solar, hydropower and biogas, up from 3.6 percent in 1990.
But Germany’s lofty vision has run into a gritty reality: Replacing fossil fuels and nuclear power in one of the largest industrial nations in the world is politically more difficult and expensive than planners thought. It has forced Germany to put the brakes on its ambitious renewables program, ramp up its investments in fossil fuels, amid a renewed nuclear option debate over climate strategy, and, to some extent, put its leadership role in the fight against climate change on hold.
The trouble lies with Germany’s electricity grid. Solar and wind power call for more complex and expensive distribution networks than conventional large power plants do. “What the Germans were good at was getting new technology into the market, like wind and solar power,” said Arne Jungjohann, author of Energy Democracy: Germany’s ENERGIEWENDE to Renewables. To achieve its goals, “Germany needs to overhaul its whole grid.”
The North-South Conundrum
The boom in wind power has created an unanticipated mismatch between supply and demand. Big wind turbines, especially offshore plants such as Arkona, produce powerful, concentrated gusts of energy. That’s good when the factory that needs that energy is nearby and the wind kicks up during working hours. It’s another matter when factories are hundreds of miles away. In Germany, wind farms tend to be located in the blustery north. Many of the nation’s big factories lie in the south, which also happens to be where most of the country’s nuclear plants are being mothballed.
Getting that power from north to south is problematic. On windy days, northern wind farms generate too much energy for the grid to handle. Power lines get overloaded. To cope, grid operators ask wind farms to disconnect their turbines from the grid—those elegant blades that tourists so admired sit idle. To ensure a supply of power, operators employ backup generators at great expense. These so-called re-dispatching costs ran to 1.4 billion euros ($1.6 billion) last year.
The solution is to build more power transmission lines to take the excess wind from northern wind farms to southern factories. A grid expansion project is underway to do exactly that. Nearly 5,000 miles of new transmission lines, at a cost of billions of euros, will be paid for by utility customers. So far, less than a fifth of the lines have been built.
The grid expansion is “catastrophically behind schedule,” Energy Minister Peter Altmaier told the Handelsblatt business newspaper in August. Among the setbacks: citizens living along the route of four high-voltage power lines have demanded the cables be buried underground, which has added to the time and expense. The lines won’t be finished before 2025—three years after Germany’s nuclear shutdown is due to be completed.
With this backlog, the government has put the brakes on wind power, reducing the number of new contracts for farms and curtailing the amount it pays for renewable energy. “In the past, we have focused too much on the mere expansion of renewable energy capacity,” Joachim Pfeiffer, a spokesman for the Christian Democratic Union, wrote to Newsweek. “We failed to synchronize this expansion of generation with grid expansion.”
Advocates of renewables are up in arms, accusing the government of suffocating their industry and making planning impossible. Thousands of people lost their jobs in the wind industry, according to Wolfram Axthelm, CEO of the German Wind Energy Association. “For 2019 and 2020, we see a highly problematic situation for the industry,” he wrote in an email.
Fueling the Gap
Nord Stream 2, by contrast, is proceeding according to schedule. A beige and black barge, Castoro 10, hauls dozens of lengths of giant pipe off Germany’s Baltic Sea coast, where a welding machine connects them for lowering onto the seabed. The $11 billion project is funded by Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom and five European investors, at no direct cost to the German taxpayer. It is slated to cross the territorial waters of five countries—Germany, Russia, Finland, Sweden and Denmark. All but Denmark have approved the route. “We have good reason to believe that after four governments said yes, that Denmark will also approve the pipeline,” says Nord Stream 2 spokesman Jens Mueller.
Construction of the pipeline off Finland began in September, and the gas is expected to start flowing in late 2019, giving Russia leverage to increase its share of the European gas market. It already provides a third of the gas used in the EU and will likely provide more after the Netherlands stops its gas production in 2030. President Donald Trump has called the pipeline “a very bad thing for NATO” and said that “Germany is totally controlled by Russia.” U.S. senators have threatened sanctions against companies involved in the project. Ukraine and Poland are concerned the new pipeline will make older pipelines in their territories irrelevant.
German leaders are also wary of dependence on Russia but are under considerable pressure to deliver energy to industry. Indeed, among the pipeline’s investors are German companies that want to run their factories, like BASF’s Wintershall subsidiary and Uniper, the German utility. “It’s not that Germany is naive,” says Kirsten Westphal, an energy expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. It’s just pragmatic. “Economically, the judgment is that yes, this gas will be needed, we have an import gap to fill.”
The electricity transmission problem has also opened an opportunity for lignite coal, as coal generation in Germany remains significant, the most carbon-intensive fuel available and the source for nearly a quarter of Germany’s power. Mining companies are expanding their operations in coal-rich regions to strip out the fuel while it is still relevant. In the village of Pödelwitz, 155 miles south of Berlin, most houses feature a white sign with the logo of Mibrag, the German mining giant, which has paid nearly all the 130 residents to relocate. The company plans to level the village and scrape lignite that lies below the soil.
A resurgence in coal helped raise carbon emissions in 2015 and 2016 (2017 saw a slight decline), maintaining Germany’s place as Europe’s largest carbon emitter. Chancellor Angela Merkel has scrapped her pledge to slash carbon emissions to 40 percent of 1990 levels by the year 2020. Several members have threatened to resign from her policy commission on coal if the government allows utility company RWE to mine for lignite in Hambach Forest.
Only a few years ago, during the Paris climate talks, Germany led the EU in pushing for ambitious plans to curb emissions. Now, it seems to be having second thoughts. Recently, the European Union’s climate chief, Miguel Arias Cañete, suggested EU nations step up their commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 45 percent of 1990 levels instead of 40 percent by 2030. “I think we should first stick to the goals we have already set ourselves,” Merkel replied, even as a possible nuclear phaseout U-turn is debated, “I don’t think permanently setting ourselves new goals makes any sense.”
Toronto Flood Cleanup details the citywide response to storm damage after heavy rain, stressing drainage system upgrades, emergency services, transit disruptions, infrastructure repair, financial aid, insurance claims, and climate resilience planning for future weather.
Key Points
Toronto Flood Cleanup is the city's flood response, restoring infrastructure, aiding residents, and upgrading drainage.
✅ Emergency services and public works lead debris removal.
✅ Repairs to roads, bridges, transit, and utilities underway.
✅ Aid, insurance claims, and drainage upgrades prioritized.
Toronto is grappling with significant cleanup efforts following severe storms that unleashed heavy rains and caused widespread flooding across the city. The storms, which hit the area over the past week, have left a trail of damage and disruption, prompting both immediate response measures and longer-term recovery plans.
The intense rainfall began with a powerful storm system that moved through southern Ontario, with Sudbury Hydro crews working to reconnect service as the system pressed toward the GTA, delivering an unprecedented volume of water in a short period. The resulting downpours overwhelmed the city's drainage systems, leading to severe flooding in multiple neighborhoods. Streets, basements, and parks were inundated, with many areas experiencing water levels not seen in recent memory.
Emergency services were quickly mobilized to address the immediate impact of the floods. Toronto’s Fire Services, along with other first responders and skilled utility teams, as Ontario recently sent 200 workers to Florida to help restore power, were deployed to assist residents affected by the rising waters. Rescue operations were carried out to help people trapped in their homes or vehicles, and temporary shelters were set up for those displaced by the flooding.
The storm's impact was felt across various sectors of the city. Public transportation services were disrupted, as strong gusts led to significant power outages in parts of the region, with numerous subway stations and bus routes affected by the high water levels. Major roads were closed due to flooding, causing significant traffic delays and affecting daily commutes for many residents. Local businesses also faced challenges, with some forced to close their doors as a result of the water damage.
The city's infrastructure bore the brunt of the storm's fury. Several key infrastructure components, including roads, bridges, and utilities, suffered damage. The city's water treatment plants and sewage systems were stressed by the volume of water, raising concerns about potential contamination and the need for extensive maintenance and repair work.
In the wake of the flooding, the Toronto Municipal Government has launched a comprehensive cleanup and recovery effort. The city's Public Works Department is spearheading the operation, focusing on clearing debris, repairing damaged infrastructure, and restoring essential services, as Hydro One crews restore power to hundreds of thousands across Ontario. Teams of workers are diligently addressing the damage to roads and bridges, ensuring that they are safe for use and functioning properly.
Efforts are also underway to assist residents and businesses affected by the flooding. Financial aid and support programs are being implemented to help those who have suffered property damage or loss, including customers affected by Toronto power outages as repairs continue. The city is working closely with insurance companies to facilitate claims and provide relief to those in need.
In addition to the immediate cleanup, there is a heightened focus on evaluating and improving the city's flood management systems. The recent storms have highlighted vulnerabilities in Toronto’s infrastructure, prompting calls for enhanced flood prevention measures. City officials and urban planners are assessing the current drainage systems and exploring ways to bolster their capacity to handle future extreme weather events.
The storms have also sparked discussions about the broader implications of climate change and its impact on urban areas. Experts suggest that increasingly severe weather events, including heavy rainfall and flooding, may become more common, as seen with Houston's extended power outage after severe storms, as global temperatures rise. This has led to a call for more resilient and adaptable infrastructure to better withstand such events.
Community organizations and volunteers have played a vital role in the recovery process. Local groups have come together to support their neighbors, providing assistance with cleanup efforts, distributing supplies, and offering emotional support to those affected by the disaster. Their contributions underscore the importance of community solidarity in times of crisis.
As Toronto works towards recovery, there is a clear recognition of the need for a comprehensive strategy to address both the immediate and long-term challenges posed by severe weather events. The city’s response will involve not only repairing the damage caused by this storm but also investing in infrastructure improvements, drawing lessons from London power outage disruption cases to harden critical systems, and adopting measures to mitigate the impact of future floods.
In summary, the severe storms that recently struck Toronto have led to widespread flooding and significant disruption across the city. The immediate response has involved extensive cleanup efforts, damage assessment, and support for affected residents and businesses. Looking ahead, Toronto faces the challenge of enhancing its flood management systems and preparing for the potential impacts of climate change. The collective efforts of emergency services, city officials, and community members will be crucial in ensuring a swift recovery and building resilience against future storms.
Belarus Nuclear Power Infrastructure Review evaluates IAEA INIR Phase 3 readiness at Ostrovets NPP, VVER-1200 reactors, legal and regulatory framework, commissioning, safety, emergency preparedness, and energy diversification in a low-carbon program.
Key Points
An IAEA INIR Phase 3 assessment of Belarus readiness to commission and operate the Ostrovets NPP with VVER-1200 units.
✅ Reviews legal, regulatory, and institutional arrangements
✅ Confirms Phase 3 readiness for safe commissioning and operation
✅ Highlights good practices in peer reviews and emergency planning
An International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team of experts today concluded a 12-day mission to Belarus to review its infrastructure development for a nuclear power programme. The Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) was carried out at the invitation of the Government of Belarus.
Belarus, seeking to diversify its energy production with a reliable low-carbon source, and aware of the benefits of energy storage for grid flexibility, is building its first nuclear power plant (NPP) at the Ostrovets site, about 130 km north-west of the capital Minsk. The country has engaged with the Russian Federation to construct and commission two VVER-1200 pressurised water reactors at this site and expects the first unit to be connected to the grid this year.
The INIR mission reviewed the status of nuclear infrastructure development using the Phase 3 conditions of the IAEA’s Milestones Approach. The Ministry of Energy of Belarus hosted the mission.
The INIR team said Belarus is close to completing the required nuclear power infrastructure for starting the operation of its first NPP. The team made recommendations and suggestions aimed at assisting Belarus in making further progress in its readiness to commission and operate it, including planning for integration with variable renewables, as advances in new wind turbines are being deployed elsewhere to strengthen the overall energy mix.
“This mission marks an important step for Belarus in its preparations for the introduction of nuclear power,” said team leader Milko Kovachev, Head of the IAEA’s Nuclear Infrastructure Development Section. “We met well-prepared, motivated and competent professionals ready to openly discuss all infrastructure issues. The team saw a clear drive to meet the objectives of the programme and deliver benefits to the Belarusian people, such as supporting the country’s economic development, including growth in EV battery manufacturing sectors.”
The team comprised one expert from Algeria and two experts from the United Kingdom, as well as seven IAEA staff. It reviewed the status of 19 nuclear infrastructure issues using the IAEA evaluation methodology for Phase 3 of the Milestones Approach, noting that regional integration via an electricity highway can shape planning assumptions as well. It was the second INIR mission to Belarus, who hosted a mission covering Phases 1 and 2 in 2012.
Prior to the latest mission, Belarus prepared a Self-Evaluation Report covering all infrastructure issues and submitted the report and supporting documents to the IAEA.
The team highlighted areas where further actions would benefit Belarus, including the need to improve institutional arrangements and the legal and regulatory framework, drawing on international examples of streamlined licensing for advanced reactors to ensure a stable and predictable environment for the programme; and to finalize the remaining arrangements needed for sustainable operation of the nuclear power plant.
The team also identified good practices that would benefit other countries developing nuclear power in the areas of programme and project coordination, the use of independent peer reviews, cooperation with regulators from other countries, engagement with international stakeholders and emergency preparedness, and awareness of regional initiatives such as new electricity interconnectors that can enhance system resilience.
Mikhail Chudakov, IAEA Deputy Director General and Head of the Department of Nuclear Energy attended the Mission’s closing meeting. “Developing the infrastructure required for a nuclear power programme requires significant financial and human resources, and long lead times for preparation and the approval of major transmission projects that support clean power flows, and the construction activities,” he said. “Belarus has made commendable progress since the decision to launch a nuclear power programme 10 years ago.”
“Hosting the INIR mission, Belarus demonstrated its transparency and genuine interest to receive an objective professional assessment of the readiness of its nuclear power infrastructure for the commissioning of the country’s first nuclear power plant,” said Mikhail Mikhadyuk, Deputy Minister of Energy of the Republic of Belarus. ”The recommendations and suggestions we received will be an important guidance for our continuous efforts aimed at ensuring the highest level of safety and reliability of the Belarusian NPP."
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.
