As makers from Tesla to Nissan Motor Company jockey to dominate the next generation electric-powered cars, a fight on which companies will control the lucrative market to fuel them is just getting started.
U.S. President Barack Obama aims to put a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015 as part of the new U.S. effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming.
Cars are sexier than gas pumps or charging stations, but as the history of the oil industry shows, fuel is big business. A million electric cars will need a lot of power and a complex system to make sure the grid is not overwhelmed.
"Your head starts spinning when you think of what the possibilities and opportunities are but also the complexity," said Bill Nicholson, who leads the electric vehicle initiative at Portland General Electric in Oregon.
He does not expect utilities to be big players in setting up charging stations although they will provide the power.
"There will be some pretty large players in the charging station infrastructure business who will then partner with some pretty large players in the information side of this, the IBMs of the world and others that do nationwide deployment of standardized charging stations," he predicted.
Politics are sure to shape the economics of the industry. The Climate Change bill that has passed the U.S. House of Representatives and is being considered by the Senate requires utilities to draw up plans for charging electric vehicles. It also sets financial incentives to set up charging stations and subsidies for people buying electric cars.
Many wonder if electric vehicle sales will take off. Automakers sold only about 160,000 hybrids, or 2.8 percent of total sales, in the U.S. this year through July, according to Autodata.
Plug-in hybrids, which are part of Obama's goal of having one million electric cars on the roads by 2015, may account for 25 percent of auto sales by 2020, according to separate studies by the Department of Energy and environmental groups.
Electric cars can be smooth, quiet and environmentally friendly. But they must deliver clear operating savings, since their price tag may initially be higher than conventional vehicles. Nissan roughly sees their operating cost equivalent to $1.10 per gallon of gasoline.
Skeptics say charging stations won't be a viable business because drivers will top off batteries at home, except on long trips, and won't want to pay a premium for electricity.
"We've found that about 90 percent of our customers' charging happens at home," said JB Straubel, Chief Technology Officer of Tesla Motors, maker of a $100,000-plus electric sports car whose 300-mile range is triple that of mass market vehicles from other makers due to enter the market late next year.
Proponents counter that charge stations will proliferate once there are a million or more electric cars on the roads. Most charging will be done at home, but some cars don't even have a garage.
"If you live in San Francisco, 51 percent of all cars are parked curbside at night," said Richard Lowenthal, founder and CEO of Coulomb Technologies, which aims to sell about a thousand charging stations this year at $2,000-plus each.
"I ship a station, I keep $1,000," said Lowenthal. He expects five times as many sales next year. But he says electric charge stations will offer a lot more than a plug.
Company founders included former executives of Internet equipment maker Cisco Systems Inc, and Coulomb sees services such as finding a free charge spot by cell phone as key to its potential success.
A University of California, Berkeley study says as much as $320 billion will be spent on charging infrastructure over the next couple of decades. The U.S. Department of Energy recently awarded $2.4 billion in electric-vehicle related grants.
Technology being developed by the industry will cut the time it takes to charge a car battery from hours to between 10 and 45 minutes. That won't be possible in most homes, but it should make long trips much easier.
"That's kind of a game changer because then you can do fast charging and it's competitive with gasoline," said Jeff Kim, president of privately held Shorepower Technologies, which already has charging stations at truck stops to run air conditioners on big rigs while drivers sleep.
A big roll-out of charging stations could come in about six months said, Kristen Helsel, director of electric vehicles at AeroVironment Inc.
"What's really important is we go in before the cars, but not a whole lot before the cars," she said.
Views about who could own the stations are all over the map. Equipment makers could deploy stations themselves, parking garage and restaurant owners could buy them for their properties, and larger networks might be set up by independent operators or companies who see charging as part of a bigger business of providing services to electric car owners.
Lowenthal has sold chargers to a McDonald's restaurant and his own landlord. Both hope to attract 'green' clients, he said. He's also had interest from financiers.
Entrepreneur Ron Percival, of PowerUp Systems Inc., is buying Shorepower stations and plans a network of 'e-Stations' in Vancouver, Seattle and Toronto in time for the Vancouver 2010 winter Olympics. If successful he will expand in the Pacific Northwest and Canada.
A big question is whether municipalities and utilities will take on charging. Better Place, a California company with $300 million in funding and plans to build networks from Australia to the San Francisco Bay Area, says cities and power companies won't do more than set up 'seed' stations.
"For real adoption you need to have real numbers. You can't have people driving around looking for a charge spot because it won't work," said Sidney Goodman, vice-president of Automotive Alliances at Better Place.
Better Place plans to lease batteries to drivers along with charging facilities. Motorists will be able to swap spent batteries at its stations and the company will develop a computer network to make the process easier.
The company has not yet raised the money it will need to begin operations in the United States, but it has started investing an expected $150 million to $200 million into deploying 100,000 charging spots and stations to swap out depleted batteries in its first deployment, Israel.
Nuclear Power Revival drives decarbonization, climate change mitigation, and energy security with SMRs, Generation IV designs, baseload reliability, and policy support, complementing renewables to meet net-zero targets and growing global electricity demand.
Key Points
A global shift back to nuclear energy, leveraging SMRs and advanced reactors to cut emissions and enhance energy security.
✅ SMRs offer safer, modular, and cost-effective deployment.
✅ Provides baseload power to complement intermittent renewables.
✅ Policy support and investments accelerate advanced designs.
In recent years, nuclear power has experienced a remarkable revival in public interest, policy discussions, and energy investment. Once overshadowed by controversies surrounding safety, waste management, and high costs, nuclear energy is now being reexamined as a vital component of the global energy transition, despite recurring questions such as whether it is in decline from some commentators. Here's why nuclear power is "so hot" right now:
1. Climate Change Urgency
One of the most compelling reasons for the renewed interest in nuclear energy is the urgent need to address climate change. Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power generates electricity with zero greenhouse gas emissions during operation. As countries rush to meet net-zero carbon targets, evidence that net-zero may require nuclear is gaining traction, and nuclear offers a reliable, large-scale alternative to complement renewable energy sources like wind and solar.
2. Energy Security and Independence
Geopolitical tensions and supply chain disruptions have exposed vulnerabilities in relying on imported fossil fuels, and Europe's shrinking nuclear capacity has sharpened concerns over resilience. Nuclear power provides a domestic, stable energy source that can operate independently of volatile global markets. For many nations, this has become a strategic priority, reducing dependence on politically sensitive energy imports.
3. Advances in Technology
Modern innovations in nuclear technology are transforming the industry. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are leading the way as part of next-gen nuclear innovation, offering safer, more affordable, and flexible options for nuclear deployment. Unlike traditional large-scale reactors, SMRs can be built faster, scaled to specific energy needs, and deployed in remote or smaller markets.
Additionally, advances in reactor designs, such as Generation IV reactors and fusion research, promise to address longstanding concerns like waste management and safety. For example, some new designs can recycle spent fuel or run on alternative fuels, significantly reducing radioactive waste.
4. Public Perception Is Shifting
Public opinion on nuclear power is also changing. While the industry faced backlash after high-profile incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, increasing awareness of climate change and energy security is prompting many to reconsider, including renewed debates such as Germany's potential nuclear return in policy circles. A younger, climate-conscious generation views nuclear energy not as a relic of the past, but as an essential tool for a sustainable future.
5. Renewables Alone Are Not Enough
While renewable energy sources like solar and wind have grown exponentially, their intermittent nature remains a challenge. Energy storage technologies, such as batteries, have not yet matured enough to fully bridge the gap. Nuclear power, with its ability to provide constant, "baseload" energy, as France's fleet demonstrates in practice, serves as an ideal complement to variable renewables in a decarbonized energy mix.
6. Government Support and Investment
Policymakers are taking action to bolster the nuclear sector. Many countries are including nuclear energy in their clean energy plans, offering subsidies, grants, and streamlined regulations to accelerate its deployment. For instance, the United States has allocated billions of dollars to support advanced nuclear projects, the UK's green industrial revolution outlines support for upcoming reactor waves, while Europe has classified nuclear power as "sustainable" under its green taxonomy.
7. Global Energy Demand Is Growing
As populations and economies grow, so does the demand for electricity. Developing nations, in particular, are seeking energy solutions that can support industrialization while limiting environmental impact. Nuclear energy is being embraced as a way to meet these dual objectives, especially in regions with limited access to consistent renewable energy resources.
Challenges Ahead
Despite its potential, nuclear energy is not without its challenges. High upfront costs, lengthy construction timelines, and public concerns over safety and waste remain significant hurdles. The industry will need to address these issues while continuing to innovate and build public trust.
Nuclear power's resurgence is driven by its unique ability to tackle some of the most pressing challenges of our time: climate change, energy security, and the growing demand for electricity. With advances in technology, changing perceptions, and robust policy support, nuclear energy is poised to play a critical role in the global transition to a sustainable and secure energy future.
In a world increasingly shaped by the need for clean and reliable power, nuclear energy has once again become a hot topic—and for good reason.
U.S. Climate Change Donation Survey reveals Americans' willingness to fund sustainability via government incentives, electrification, and renewable energy. Public opinion favors wind, solar, and decarbonization, highlighting policy support post-pandemic amid economic recovery efforts.
Key Points
A 2020 U.S. poll on climate attitudes: donation willingness, renewable support, and views on government incentives.
✅ 70% would donate income; 31% would donate nothing.
✅ 59% prefer government incentives; 47% support taxes, conservation.
✅ 85% land wind, 83% offshore wind, 90% solar support.
A new study of American consumers' attitudes toward climate change finds that more than two-thirds of respondents (70%) indicate their willingness to give or donate a percentage of their personal income to support the fight against climate change and the path to net-zero electricity emissions by mid-century.
Twenty-eight percent indicated they were willing to provide less than 1% of their income; 33% said they would be willing to contribute 1-5% of their income; 6% said they would give between 6-10% of their income; and 3% indicated they would contribute more than 10% of their income. Just under one-third (31%) of those surveyed indicated they were unwilling to give or donate any percentage of their income to support the fight against climate change.
The U.S. findings are part of a series of surveys commissioned by Nexans in the U.S., UK and France, in order to determine public opinion on climate change and related issues in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The U.S. study was conducted online by Researchscape from August 20 – 24, 2020. It had 1,013 respondents, ages 18 or older, with the results weighted to be representative of the overall population (variables available upon request).
Nexans, is headquartered in Paris with a major offshore wind cable manufacturing facility in Charleston, S.C. and an industrial cable manufacturing facility in El Dorado, Ark. The company is fully committed to fighting climate change and is helping to make sustainable electrification possible. The survey was developed as part of its celebration of the first Climate Day in Paris which included a roundtable event with world-renowned experts, the release of an unprecedented global study by Roland Berger on the challenges raised by the electrification of the world, the question of whether the global energy transition is on track, and Nexans' own commitment to be carbon neutral by 2030.
Paying the Tab to Address Climate Change
Participants were given the opportunity to choose from seven multiple responses to the question "How should the fight against climate change be paid for?" The majority (59%) replied it should be paid for by "government incentives for both businesses and consumers." It was followed by "federal, state and/or local taxes" and "conservation programs" (tied at 47%); "business investments" (42%), such as carbon-free electricity initiatives, and "consumer-driven purchases" (33%). Just 9% selected none of the above and 2% selected other.
"Through the organization of this Climate Day, Nexans is asserting itself not only as an actor but also a thought leader of the energy transition for a sustainable electrification of the world. This electrification raises a number of challenges and paradoxes that must be overcome. And it will only happen with the direct involvement of the populations concerned. These surveys provide a better understanding of the level of information and disinformation, including climate change denial, in public opinion as well as their level of acceptability of these lifestyle changes," said Christopher Guérin, CEO, Nexans.
Among other findings, 44% are dissatisfied with the job that federal and state governments are doing to address climate change, while utilities like Duke Energy face investor pressure to release climate reports, 35% are somewhat satisfied and 21% are either very satisfied or completed satisfied with government's role.
Americans expressed overwhelmingly favorable views of wind and solar renewable energy proposals, as carbon emissions fall when electricity producers move away from coal. Specifically, 85% stated being in favor of wind turbines on land (15% against), 83% in favor of wind turbines off the coast (17% against) and 90% in support of solar panel farms (10% opposed).
Those surveyed were asked about their current and changing priorities towards climate change as influenced by the coronavirus pandemic and impacts like extreme heat on electricity bills. Thirty-nine percent indicated that climate change was no more and no less a priority due to the current health emergency; just under a third (31%) indicated that climate change is more of a priority while 30% said it was less of a priority.
In similar research conducted by Nexans in the United Kingdom, nearly two thirds (65.8%) of UK respondents said they would be willing to donate part of their salary to fight climate change. Furthermore, nearly a third (29%) of the UK's consumers believe that combating climate change has become more of a priority in light of the coronavirus pandemic. The UK research was conducted online by Savanta from August 21 – 24, 2020. A total of 2210 respondents, aged 16 and above, representative of the UK population took part.
Twin States Clean Energy Link connects New England to Hydro-Quebec via a 1,200 MW transmission line, DOE-backed capacity, underground segments, existing corridors, boosting renewable energy reliability across Vermont and New Hampshire with cross-border grid flexibility.
Key Points
DOE-backed 1,200 MW line linking Hydro-Quebec to New England, adding clean capacity with underground routes.
✅ 1,200 MW cross-border capacity for the New England grid
✅ Uses existing corridors; underground in VT and northern NH
✅ DOE capacity contract lowers risk and spurs investment
A proposal to build a new transmission line to connect New England with Canadian hydropower is one step closer to reality.
The U.S. Department of Energy announced Monday that it has selected the Twin States Clean Energy Link as one of three transmission projects that will be part of its $1.3 billion cross-border transmission initiative to add capacity to the grid.
WBUR is a nonprofit news organization. Our coverage relies on your financial support. If you value articles like the one you're reading right now, give today.
Twin States is a proposal from National Grid, a utility company that serves Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island, and also owns transmission in England and Wales as the region advances projects like the Scotland-to-England subsea link that expand renewable flows, and the non-profit Citizens Energy Corporation.
The transmission line would connect New England with power from Hydro-Quebec, moving into the United States from Canada in Northern Vermont and crossing into New Hampshire near Dalton. It would run through parts of Grafton, Merrimack, and Hillsborough counties, routing through a substation in Dunbarton and ending at a proposed new substation in Londonderry. (Here's a map of the Twin States proposal.)
The federal funding will allow the U.S. Department of Energy to purchase capacity on the planned transmission line, which officials say reduces the risk for other investors and can help encourage others to purchase capacity.
The project has gotten support from local officials in Vermont and New Hampshire, but there are still hurdles to cross. The contract negotiation process is beginning, National Grid said, and the proposal still needs approvals from regulators before construction could begin.
First Nations communities in Canada have opposed transmission lines connecting Hydro-Quebec with New England in the past, and the company has faced scrutiny from environmental groups.
What would Twin States look like? Transmission projects, like the failed Northern Pass proposal, have been controversial in New England, though the Great Northern Transmission Line progressed in Minnesota.
But Reihaneh Irani-Famili, vice president of capital delivery, project management and construction at National Grid, said this one is different because the developers listened to community concerns before planning the project.
“They did not want new corridors of infrastructure, so we made sure that we're using existing right of way,” she said. “They did not want the visual impact and some of the newer corridors of infrastructure, we're making sure we're undergrounding portions of the line.”
In Vermont and northern New Hampshire, the transmission lines would be buried underground along state roads. South of Littleton, they would be located within existing transmission corridors.
The developers say the lines could provide 1,200 megawatts of transmission capacity. The project would have the ability to carry electricity from hydro facilities in Quebec to New England, and would also be able to bring electricity from New England into Quebec, a step toward broader macrogrid connectivity across regions.
“Those hydro dams become giant green batteries for the region, and they hold that water until we need the electrons,” Irani-Famili said. “So if you think about our energy system not as one that sees borders, but one that sees resources, this is connecting the Quebec resources to the New England resources and helping all of us get into that cleaner energy future with a lot less build than we otherwise would have.”
Irani-Famili says the transmission line could help facilitate more clean energy resources like offshore wind coming online. In a report released last week by New Hampshire’s Department of Energy, authors said importing Canadian hydropower could be one of the most cost-effective ways to move away from fossil fuels on the electric grid.
National Grid estimates the project will help save energy customers $8.3 billion in its first 12 years. The developers are constructing a $260 million “community benefits plan” that would take some profits from the transmission line and give that money back to communities that host the transmission lines and environmental justice communities in New England.
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.
Alberta Electricity Price Surge reflects soaring wholesale rates, natural gas spikes, carbon tax pressures, and grid decarbonization challenges amid cold-weather demand, constrained supply, and Europe-style energy crisis impacts across the province.
Key Points
An exceptional jump in Alberta's power costs driven by gas price spikes, high demand, policy costs, and tight supply.
✅ Wholesale prices averaged $123/MWh in December
✅ Gas costs surged; supply constraints and outages
✅ Carbon tax and decarbonization policies raised costs
Albertans just endured the highest electricity prices in 21 years. Wholesale prices averaged $123 per megawatt-hour in December, more than triple the level from the previous year and highest for December since 2000.
The situation in Alberta mirrors the energy crisis striking Europe where electricity prices are also surging, largely due to a shocking five-fold increase in natural gas prices in 2021 compared to the prior year.
The situation should give pause to Albertans when they consider aggressive plans to “decarbonize” the electric grid, including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 from some policymakers.
The explanation for skyrocketing energy prices is simple: increased demand (because of Calgary's frigid February demand and a slowly-reviving post-pandemic economy) coupled with constrained supply.
In the nitty gritty details, there are always particular transitory causes, such as disputes with Russian gas companies (in the case of Europe) or plant outages (in the case of Alberta).
But beyond these fleeting factors, there are more permanent systemic constraints on natural gas (and even more so, coal-fired) power plants.
I refer of course to the climate change policies of the Trudeau government at the federal level and some of the more aggressive provincial governments, which have notable implications for electricity grids across Canada.
The most obvious example is the carbon tax, the repeal of which Premier Jason Kenney made a staple of his government.
Putting aside the constitutional issues (on which the Supreme Court ruled in March of last year that the federal government could impose a carbon tax on Alberta), the obvious economic impact will be to make carbon-sourced electricity more expensive.
This isn’t a bug or undesired side-effect, it’s the explicit purpose of a carbon tax.
Right now, the federal carbon tax is $40 per tonne, is scheduled to increase to $50 in April, and will ultimately max out at a whopping $170 per tonne in 2030.
Again, the conscious rationale of the tax, aligned with goals for cleaning up Canada's electricity, is to make coal, oil and natural gas more expensive to induce consumers and businesses to use alternative energy sources.
As Albertans experience sticker shock this winter, they should ask themselves — do we want the government intentionally making electricity and heating oil more expensive?
Of course, the proponent of a carbon tax (and other measures designed to shift Canadians away from carbon-based fuels) would respond that it’s a necessary measure in the fight against climate change, and that Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA.
Yet the reality is that Canada is a bit player on the world stage when it comes to carbon dioxide, responsible for only 1.5% of global emissions (as of 2018).
As reported at this “climate tracker” website, if we look at the actual policies put in place by governments around the world, they’re collectively on track for the Earth to warm 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, far above the official target codified in the Paris Agreement.
Canadians can’t do much to alter the global temperature, but federal and provincial governments can make energy more expensive if policymakers so choose, and large-scale electrification could be costly—the Canadian Gas Association warns of $1.4 trillion— if pursued rapidly.
As renewable technologies become more reliable and affordable, business and consumers will naturally adopt them; it didn’t take a “manure tax” to force people to use cars rather than horses.
As official policy continues to make electricity more expensive, Albertans should ask if this approach is really worth it, or whether options like bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap could better balance costs.
Robert P. Murphy is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.
South Carolina Energy Freedom Act lifts net metering caps, reforms PURPA, and overhauls utility planning to boost solar competition, grid resiliency, and consumer choice across the Southeast amid Santee Cooper debt and utility monopoly pressure.
Key Points
A bipartisan reform lifting net metering caps, modernizing PURPA, and updating utility planning to expand solar.
✅ Lifts net metering cap to accelerate rooftop and community solar.
✅ Reforms PURPA contracts to enable fair pricing and transparent procurement.
✅ Modernizes utility IRP and opens markets to competition and customer choice.
The South Carolina House has approved the latest version of the Energy Freedom Act, a bill that overhauls the state’s electricity policies, including lifting the net metering caps and reforming PURPA implementation and utility planning processes in a way that advocates say levels the playing field for solar at all scales.
With Governor Henry McMaster (R) expected to sign the bill shortly, this is a major coup not just for solar in the state, but the region. This is particularly notable given the struggle that solar has had just to gain footing in many parts of the South, which is dominated by powerful utility monopolies and conservative politicians.
Two days ago when the bill passed the Senate we covered the details of the policy, but today we’re going to take a look at the politics of getting the Energy Freedom Act passed, and what this means for other Southern states and “red” states.
Opportunity amid crisis
The first thing to note about this bill is that it comes within a crisis in South Carolina’s electricity sector. This was the first legislative session following state-run utility Santee Cooper’s formal abandonment of a project to build two new reactors at the Virgil C. Sumner nuclear power plant, on which work stopped nearly two years ago.
Santee Cooper still holds $4 billion in construction debt related to the nuclear projects. According to an article in The State, this is costing its customers $5 per month toward the current debt, and this will rise to $13 per month for the next 40 years.
Such costs are particularly unwelcome in South Carolina, which has the highest annual electricity bills in the nation due to a combination of very high electricity usage driven by widespread air conditioning during the hot summers and higher prices per unit of power than other Southern states.
Following this fiasco, Santee Cooper’s CEO has stepped down, and the state government is currently considering selling the utility to a private entity. According to Maggie Clark, southeast state affairs senior manager for Solar Energy Industries Association, all of this set the stage for the bill that passed today.
“South Carolina is in a really ripe state for transformational energy policy in the wake of the VC Sumner nuclear plant cancellation,” Clark told pv magazine. “They were looking for a way forward, and I think this bill really provided them something to champion.”
Renewable energy policy for red states
This major win for solar policy comes in a state where the Republican Party holds majorities in both houses of the state’s legislature and sends bills to a Republican governor.
Broadly speaking, Republican politicians seldom show the level of interest in supporting renewable energy that Democrats do either at the state or national level, and show even less inclination to act to address greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the 100% clean energy mandates that are being implemented in four states and Washington D.C. have only passed with Democratic trifectas, in other words with Republicans controlling neither house of the state legislature nor the governor’s office. (Note: This does not apply to Puerto Rico, which has a different party structure to the rest of the United States)
However, South Carolina shows there are Republican politicians who will support pro-renewable energy policies, and circumstances under which Republican majorities will vote for legislation that aids the adoption of solar. And these specific circumstances speak to both different priorities and ideological differences between the two parties.
SEIA’s Maggie Clark emphasizes that the Energy Freedom Act was about reforming market rules. “This was a way to provide a program that did not provide subsidies or incentives in any way, but to really open the market to competition,” explains Clark. “I think that appealing to conservatives in the South about energy independence and resiliency and ultimately cost savings is the winning message on this issue.”
Such messaging in South Carolina is not an accident. Not only has such messaging been successful in the past, but coalition partner Vote Solar paid for polling to find what messages resounded with the state’s voters, and found that choice and competition were likely to resound.
And all of this happened in the context of what Clark describes as an “extremely well-resourced effort”, with SEIA in particular dedicating national attention and resources to the state – as part of an effort by President and CEO Abigail Hopper to shift attention more towards state-level policy. Maggie Clark is one of two new regional staff who Hopper has hired, and SEIA’s first staff member focused on Southern states.
“Absolutely the South is a prioritized region,” Hopper told pv magazine, noting that three Southern states – the Carolinas and Florida – are among the 12 states that the organization has identified to work on this year. “It became clear that as a region it needed more attention.”
SEIA is not expecting fly-by-night victories, and Hopper attributes the success in South Carolina not only to a broad coalition, but to years of work on the ground in the state.
Nor is SEIA the only organization to grow its presence in the region. Vote Solar now has two full time staff located in the South, whereas two years ago its sole staff member dedicated to the region was located in Washington D.C.
Ideology versus reality in the South
The Energy Freedom Act aligns with conservative ideas about small government and competition, but the American right is not monolithic, nor do political ideas and actions always line up neatly, as other successful policies in other states in the region show
By far the largest deployment of renewable energy in the nation has been in Texas, aside from in California which leads overall. Here a system of renewable energy zones in the sparsely populated but windy and sunny west, north and center of the state feed cities to the east with power from wind and more recently solar.
This was enabled by transmission lines whose cost was socialized among the state’s ratepayers – a tremendous irony given that the state’s politicians would be some of the last in the nation to want to be identified with socializing anything.
Another example is Louisiana, which saw a healthy residential solar market over the last decade due to a 50% state rebate. The policy has expired, but when operating it was exactly the sort of outright subsidy that right-wing media and politicians rail against.
Of course there is also North Carolina, which built the 2nd-largest solar market in the nation on the back of successful state-level implementation of PURPA, a federal law. Finally there is Virginia, where large-scale projects are booming following a 2018 law that found that 5 GW of solar is in the public interest.
Furthermore, while conservatives continually expound the virtues of the free market, the reality of the electricity sector in the “deep red” South is anything but that. The region missed out on the wave of deregulation in the 1990s, and remains dominated by monopoly utilities regulated by the state: a union of big business and big government where competition is non-existent.
This has also meant that the solar which has been deployed in the South is mostly not the kind of rooftop solar that many think of as embodying energy independence, but rather large-scale solar built in farms, fields and forests.
Where to from here?
With such contradictions between stated ideology and practice, it is less clear what makes for successful renewable energy policy in the South. However, opening up markets appears to be working not only in South Carolina, but also in Florida, where third-party solar companies are making inroads after the state’s voters rejected a well-funded and duplicitous utilities’ campaign to kill distributed solar.
SEIA’s Hopper says that she is “aggressively optimistic” about solar in Florida. As utilities have dominated large-solar deployment in the state, even as the state declined federal solar incentives earlier this year, she says that she sees opening up the state’s booming utility-scale solar market to competition as a priority.
Some parts of the region may be harder than others, and it is notable that SEIA has not had as much to say about Alabama, Mississippi or Louisiana, which are largely controlled by utility giants Southern Company and Entergy, or the area under the thumb of the Tennessee Valley Authority, one of the most anti-solar entities in the power sector.
Abby Hopper says ultimately, demand from customers – both individuals and corporations – is the key to transforming policy. “You replicate these victories by customer demand,” Hopper told pv magazine. “That combination of voices from the customer are what’s going to drive change.”
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.
