More than $50 billion is being wasted each year by the owners of 2.8 million U.S. commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings that rely on outmoded lighting systems that waste energy and money, especially when they fail to deliver the array of High-Benefit Lighting” savings otherwise available.
Citing a letter issued by Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman, National Lighting Bureau Chair Robert W. Colgan, Jr. noted that “the return on investment that can be generated by upgrading these outmoded systems will never be better. The Commercial Building Tax Deduction [CBTD] introduced through the Energy Policy Act of 2005 has been extended through December 31, 2013. The CBTD gives owners a tax benefit of as much as 60 cents per square foot for qualifying lighting systems, effectively lowering the investment required to update or replace an outmoded system.
“The return – in the form of utility bill savings and the bottom-line benefits of providing better seeing conditions – creates a genuinely huge financial incentive at a time when building owners could really use one.”
In his letter to building-industry leaders, Secretary Bodman wrote, “More than 75 percent of the Nation’s five million commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings were built
prior to the introduction of many groundbreaking energy efficient technologies currently available today. These buildings consume nearly 900 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, at a cost exceeding $115 billion each year. While cost-effective lighting technologies are available now to cut energy costs by up to 50 percent, only 25 percent of the buildings have been upgraded.”
Mr. Colgan said that the upgrade incentives comprise far more than the tax benefits that can significantly offset the capital investment required to improve. “The energy cost savings can be substantial,” he said, noting that, using Department of Energy estimates, lighting upgrades alone could avoid some $50 billion of needless energy expense each year.
“But energy savings are only part of the picture,” he added, commenting that most of the buildings in question also pay “demand charges,” that is, fees imposed by electric utilities based on the maximum amount of electricity the buildings use during a given “demand interval,” often a period of 15 consecutive minutes.
Mr. Colgan explained, “Although two utility customers may consume the identical amount of electricity in a month, the utility will have to invest far more to meet the demands of a customer that uses that amount all in one day versus the customer that consumes about 3.33 percent of the amount each day of the month. Demand charges typically are imposed on nonresidential customers as separate elements of the utility bill, and they can in some cases amount to as much as or even more than energy charges.”
Despite the often-substantial savings afforded by lower utility bills, the most significant value likely to be derived from lighting-system upgrades comes from what the National Lighting Bureau calls High-Benefit Lighting; that is, lighting systems designed specifically for the tasks, workers, and spaces involved. According to Mr. Colgan, “National Lighting Bureau case histories show that, when new or upgraded lighting is well-designed, properly installed, and commissioned to ensure it achieves the design intent, people can perform their tasks faster and with fewer errors.
“Consider this: A two-shift, 100-person-per-shift manufacturer may spend about $15,000 per year on lighting energy when it operates six days per week. If so, a 70% energy-use reduction would yield an energy-cost benefit of $10,500 per year. If that same new lighting were well-designed and so improved worker productivity by just 2% per year, the manufacturer would derive an additional benefit worth about $150,000 per year.”
Productivity improvements are not the only benefits of High-Benefit Lighting, Mr. Colgan said. He commented that additional benefits stem from fewer errors, fewer accidents, reduced absenteeism, improved security, increased retail sales, and, in a number of cases, higher resale value for the property involved.
And still, thatÂ’s not all.
“The nation’s number-one source of greenhouse gas emissions is coal-fired power plants,” Mr. Colgan said. “Reducing electrical requirements reduces the amount of coal burned each year and that can have an extremely positive effect on our environment, and can significantly reduce the costs we’d otherwise have to bear to clean up the pollution involved and counteract the warming effects otherwise created.”
Mr. Colgan commented that the CBTD applies to more than lighting and, for that reason, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association – a founder and long-term sponsor of the National Lighting Bureau – has been working with Secretary Bodman in developing a multifaceted, national energy-conservation effort.
As Secretary Bodman wrote, “I challenged the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) to commit to a national building energy efficiency campaign…[and] NEMA has responded with enthusiasm, resources, and dedication….The benefits to be gained from its initiative are described in detail at its website, www.NEMAsaveseneregy.org.”
“There are so many right reasons for upgrading or replacing outmoded lighting systems right now,” Mr. Colgan said. “And the return on one’s investment can be truly spectacular.”
Lighting-system designers available to help achieve High-Benefit Lighting in every state of the union are listed at the National Lighting Bureau website (www.nlb.org).
“We identified these people and are providing their listings at no charge to help jump-start the decision process,” Mr. Colgan said. “We have encouraged every lighting-system designer in the nation to sign up.”
The Bureau’s website also provides guidance on how to select lighting-system designers and lists individuals who are authorized to certify that a given lighting system complies with the CBTD requirements. “Lighting systems must be certified in order to be eligible for the tax deduction,” Mr. Colgan noted.
“Lighting systems can be certified by qualified contractors and engineers as well as lighting-system designers, and the Bureau invites certifying firms and individuals to list free of charge on the NLB website. We want to make it easy for businesses to take advantage of these great incentives.”
The BureauÂ’s website also provides free guidance literature, as well as numerous articles and case histories describing the benefits of High-Benefit Lighting.
Ontario Wind Power Policy Shift signals renewed investment in renewable energy, wind farms, and grid resilience, aligning with climate goals, lower electricity costs, job creation, and turbine technology for cleaner, diversified power.
Key Points
A provincial pivot to expand wind energy, meet climate goals, lower costs, and boost jobs across Ontario’s power system.
✅ Diversifies Ontario's grid with scalable renewable capacity.
✅ Targets emissions cuts while stabilizing electricity prices.
✅ Spurs rural investment, supply chains, and skilled jobs.
Ontario’s energy landscape is undergoing a significant transformation as Premier Doug Ford makes a notable shift in his approach to wind power. This change represents a strategic pivot in the province’s energy policy, potentially altering the future of Ontario’s power generation, environmental goals, and economic prospects.
The Backdrop: Ford’s Initial Stance on Wind Power
When Doug Ford first assumed the role of Premier in 2018, his administration was marked by a strong stance against renewable energy projects, including wind power, with Ford later saying he was proud of tearing up contracts as part of this shift. Ford’s government inherited a legacy of ambitious renewable energy commitments from the previous Liberal administration under Kathleen Wynne, which had invested heavily in wind and solar energy. The Ford government, however, was critical of these initiatives, arguing that they resulted in high energy costs and a surplus of power that was not always needed.
In 2019, Ford’s government began rolling back several renewable energy projects, including wind farms, and was soon tested by the Cornwall wind farm ruling that scrutinized a cancellation. This move was driven by a promise to reduce electricity bills and cut what was perceived as wasteful spending on green energy. The cancellation of several wind projects led to frustration among environmental advocates and the renewable energy sector, who viewed the decision as a setback for Ontario’s climate goals.
The Shift: Embracing Wind Power
Fast forward to 2024, and Premier Ford’s administration is taking a markedly different approach. The recent policy shift, which moves to reintroduce renewable projects, indicates a newfound openness to wind power, reflecting a broader acknowledgment of the changing dynamics in energy needs and environmental priorities.
Several factors appear to have influenced this shift:
Rising Energy Demands and Climate Goals: Ontario’s growing energy demands, coupled with the pressing need to address climate change, have necessitated a reevaluation of the province’s energy strategy. As Canada commits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to cleaner energy sources, wind power is increasingly seen as a crucial component of this strategy. Ford’s change in direction aligns with these national and global goals.
Economic Considerations: The economic landscape has also evolved since Ford’s initial opposition to wind power. The cost of wind energy has decreased significantly over the past few years, making it a more competitive and viable option compared to traditional energy sources, as competitive wind power gains momentum in markets worldwide. Additionally, the wind energy sector promises substantial job creation and economic benefits, which are appealing in the context of post-pandemic recovery and economic growth.
Public Opinion and Pressure: Public opinion and advocacy groups have played a role in shaping policy. There has been a growing demand from Ontarians for more sustainable and environmentally friendly energy solutions. The Ford administration has been responsive to these concerns, recognizing the importance of addressing public and environmental pressures.
Technological Advancements: Advances in wind turbine technology have improved efficiency and reduced the impact on wildlife and local communities. Modern wind farms are less intrusive and more effective, addressing some of the concerns that were previously associated with wind power.
Implications of the Policy Shift
The implications of Ford’s shift towards wind power are far-reaching. Here are some key areas affected by this change:
Energy Portfolio Diversification: By reembracing wind power, Ontario will diversify its energy portfolio, reducing its reliance on fossil fuels and increasing the proportion of renewable energy in the mix. This shift will contribute to a more resilient and sustainable energy system.
Environmental Impact: Increased investment in wind power will contribute to Ontario’s efforts to combat climate change. Wind energy is a clean, renewable source that produces no greenhouse gas emissions during operation. This aligns with broader environmental goals and helps mitigate the impact of climate change.
Economic Growth and Job Creation: The wind power sector has the potential to drive significant economic growth and create jobs. Investments in wind farms and associated infrastructure can stimulate local economies, particularly in rural areas where many wind farms are located.
Energy Prices: While the initial shift away from wind power was partly motivated by concerns about high energy costs, including exposure to costly cancellation fees in some cases, the decreasing cost of wind energy could help stabilize or even lower electricity prices in the long term. As wind power becomes a larger component of Ontario’s energy supply, it could contribute to a more stable and affordable energy market.
Moving Forward: Challenges and Opportunities
Despite the positive aspects of this policy shift, there are challenges to consider, and other provinces have faced setbacks such as the Alberta wind farm scrapped by TransAlta that illustrate potential hurdles. Integrating wind power into the existing grid requires careful planning and investment in grid infrastructure. Additionally, addressing local concerns about wind farms, such as their impact on landscapes and wildlife, will be crucial to gaining broader acceptance.
Overall, Doug Ford’s shift towards wind power represents a significant and strategic change in Ontario’s energy policy. It reflects a broader understanding of the evolving energy landscape and the need for a sustainable and economically viable energy future. As the province navigates this new direction, the success of this policy will depend on effective implementation, ongoing stakeholder engagement, and a commitment to balancing environmental, economic, and social considerations, even as the electricity future debate continues among party leaders.
Canada Electric Vehicle Adoption is accelerating as EV range doubles, fast-charging networks expand along the Trans-Canada Highway, and drivers shift from internal combustion to clean transportation to cut emissions and support climate goals.
Key Points
Canada Electric Vehicle Adoption reflects rising EV uptake, longer range, and expanding fast-charging infrastructure.
✅ Average EV range in Canada has nearly doubled in six years.
✅ Fast chargers expanding along Trans-Canada and major corridors.
✅ Gasoline and diesel demand projected to fall sharply by 2040.
As green technology for vehicles continues to grow in popularity, with a recent EV event in Regina drawing strong interest, attendance at a seminar in southern Alberta Wednesday showed plenty people want to switch to electric.
FreeU, a series of informal education sessions about electric power and climate change, including electricity vs hydrogen considerations, helped participants to learn more about the world-changing technology.
Also included at the talks was a special electric vehicle meet up, where people interested in the technology could learn about it, first hand, from drivers who've already gone gasless despite EV shortages and wait times in many regions.
"That's kind of a warning or a caution or whatever you want to call it. You get addicted to these things and that's a good example."
James Byrne, a professor of geography at the University of Lethbridge says people are much more willing these days to look to alternatives for their driving needs, though cost remains a key barrier for many.
"The internal combustion engine is on its way out. It served us well, but electric vehicles are much cleaner, aligning with Canada's EV goals set by policymakers today."
According to the Canada Energy Regulator, the average range of electric vehicles in Canada have almost doubled in the past six years.
The agency also predicts a massive decrease in gasoline and diesel use (359 petajoules and 92 petajoules respectively) in Canada by 2040. In that same timeframe, electricity use, even though fossil-fuel share remains, is expected to increase by 118 petajoules.
The country is also developing its network of fast charging stations, so running out of juice will be less of a worry for prospective buyers, even as 2035 EV mandate debate continues among analysts.
"They have just about Interstate in the U.S. covered," Marshall said. "In Canada, they're building out the [Trans-Canada Highway] right now."
Canada Net-Zero Grid Lessons highlight Europe's energy transition risks: Germany's power prices, wind and solar variability, nuclear phaseout, grid reliability, storage, market design, policy reforms, and distributed energy resources for resilient decarbonization.
Key Points
Lessons stress an all-of-the-above mix, robust market design, storage, and nuclear to ensure reliability, affordability.
✅ Diversify: nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, storage for reliability.
✅ Reform markets and grid planning for integration and flexibility.
✅ Build fast: streamline permitting, invest in transmission and DERs.
Europe is currently suffering the consequences of an uncoordinated rush to carbon-free electricity that experts warn could hit Canada as well unless urgent action is taken.
Power prices in Germany, for example, hit a record 91 euros ($135 CAD) per megawatt-hour earlier this month. That is more than triple what electricity costs in Ontario, where greening the grid could require massive investment, even during periods of peak demand.
Experts blame the price spikes in large part on a chaotic transition to a specific set of renewable electricity sources - wind and solar - at the expense of other carbon-free supplies such as nuclear power. Germany, Europe’s largest economy, plans to close its last remaining nuclear power plant next year despite warnings that renewables are not being added to the German grid quickly enough to replace that lost supply.
As Canada prepares to transition its own electricity grid to 100 per cent net-zero supplies by 2035, with provinces like Ontario planning new wind and solar procurement, experts say the European power crisis offers lessons this country must heed in order to avoid a similar fate.
'A CAUTIONARY TALE' “Some countries have rushed their transition without thinking about what people need and when they need it,” said Chris Bentley, managing director of Ryerson University’s Legal Innovation Zone who also served as Ontario’s Minister of Energy from 2011 to 2013, in an interview. “Germany has experienced a little bit of this issue recently when the wind wasn’t blowing.”
Wind power usually provides between 20 and 30 per cent of Germany’s electricity needs, but the below-average breeze across much of continental Europe in recent months has pushed that figure down.
“There is a cautionary tale from the experience in Europe,” said Francis Bradley, chief executive officer of the Canadian Electricity Association, in an interview. “There was also a cautionary tale from what took place this past winter in Texas,” he added, referring to widespread power failures in Texas spawned by a lack of backup power supplies during an unusually cold winter that led to many deaths.
The first lesson Canada must learn from those cautionary tales, Bradley said, “is the need to pursue an all-of-the-above approach.”
“It is absolutely essential that every opportunity and every potential technology for low-carbon or no-carbon electricity needs to be pursued and needs to be pursued to the fullest,” he said.
The more important lesson for Canada, according to Binnu Jeyakumar, is about the need for a more holistic, nuanced approach to our own net-zero transition.
“It is very easy to have runaway narratives that just pinpoint the blame on one or two issues, but the lesson here isn’t really about the reliability of renewables as there are failures that occur across all sources of electricity supply,” said Jeyakumar, director of clean energy for the Pembina Institute, in an interview.
“The takeaway for us is that we need to get better at learning how to integrate an increasingly diverse electricity grid,” she said. “It is not necessarily the technologies themselves, it is about how we do grid planning, how are our markets structured and are we adapting them to the trends that are evolving in the electricity and energy sectors.”
'ABSOLUTELY ENORMOUS' CHALLENGE IS 'ALMOST MIND-BENDING' Canada already gets the vast majority of its electricity from emission-free sources. Hydro provides roughly 60 per cent of our power, nuclear contributes another 15 per cent and renewables such as wind and solar contribute roughly seven per cent more, according to federal government data.
Tempting as it might be to view the remaining 18 per cent of Canadian electricity that is supplied by oil, natural gas and coal as a small enough proportion that it should be relatively easy to replace, with some analyses warning that scrapping coal abruptly can be costly for consumers, the reality is much more difficult.
“It is the law of diminishing returns or the 80-20 rule where the first 80 per cent is easy but the last 20 per cent is hard,” Bradley explained. “We already have an electricity sector that is 80 per cent GHG-free, so getting rid of that last 20 per cent is the really difficult part because the low-hanging fruit has already been picked.”
Key to successfully decarbonizing Canada’s power grid will be the recognition that electricity demand is constantly growing, a point reinforced by a recent power challenges report that underscores the scale. That means Canada needs to build out enough emission-free power sources to replace existing fossil fuel-based supplies while also ensuring adequate supplies for future demand.
“It is one thing to say that by 2035 we are going to have a decarbonized electricity system, but the challenge really is the amount of additional electricity that we are going to need between now and 2035,” said John Gorman, chief executive officer of the Canadian Nuclear Association, which has argued that nuclear is key to climate goals in Canada, and former CEO of the Canadian Solar Industries Association, in an interview. “It is absolutely enormous, I mean, it is almost mind-bending.”
Canada will need to triple the amount of electricity produced nationwide by 2050, according to a report from SNC-Lavalin published earlier this year, and provinces such as Ontario face a shortfall over the next few years, Gorman said. Gorman said that will require adding between five and seven gigawatts of new installed capacity to Canada’s electricity grid every year from 2021 through 2050 or more than twice the amount of new power supply Canada brings online annually right now.
For perspective, consider Ontario’s Bruce Power nuclear facility. It took 27 years to bring that plant to its current 6.4 gigawatt (GW) capacity, but meeting Canada’s decarbonization goals will require adding roughly the equivalent capacity of Bruce Power every year for the next three decades.
“The task of creating enough electricity in the coming years is truly enormous and governments have not really wrapped their heads around that yet,” Gorman said. “For those of us in the energy sector, it is the type of thing that can keep you up at night.”
GOVERNMENT POLICY 'HELD HOSTAGE' BY 'DINOSAURS' The Pembina Institute’s Jeyakumar agreed “the last mile is often the most difficult” and will require “a concerted effort both at the federal level and the provincial level.”
Governments will “need to be able to support innovation and solutions such as non-wires alternatives,” she said. “Instead of building a massive new transmission line or beefing up an old one, you could put a storage facility at the end of an existing line. Distributed energy resources provide those kinds of non-wires alternatives and they are already cost-effective and competitive with oil and gas.”
For Glen Murray, who served as Ontario’s minister of infrastructure and transportation from early 2013 to mid-2014 before assuming the environment and climate change portfolio until his resignation in mid-2017, that is a key lesson governments have yet to learn.
“We are moving away from a centralized distribution model to distributed systems where individual buildings and homes and communities will supply their own electricity needs,” said Murray, who currently works for an urban planning software company in Winnipeg, in an interview. “Yet both the federal and provincial governments are assuming that we are going to continue to have large, centralized generation of power, but that is simply not going to be the case.”
“Government policy is not focused on driving that because they are held hostage by their own hydro utilities and the big gas companies,” Murray said. “They are controlling the agenda even though they are the dinosaurs.”
Referencing the SNC-Lavalin report, Gorman noted as many as 45 small, modular nuclear reactors as well as 20 conventional nuclear power plants will be required in the coming decades, with jurisdictions like Ontario exploring new large-scale nuclear as part of that mix: “And that is in the context of also maximizing all the other emission-free electricity sources we have available as well from wind to solar to hydro and marine renewables,” Gorman said, echoing the “all-of-the-above” mindset of the Canadian Electricity Association.
There are, however, “fundamental rules of the market and the regulatory system that make it an uneven playing field for these new technologies to compete,” said Jeyakumar, agreeing with Murray’s concerns. “These are all solvable problems but we need to work on them now.”
'2035 IS TOMORROW' According to Bentley, the former Ontario energy minister-turned academic, “the government's role is to match the aspiration with the means to achieve that aspiration.”
“We have spent far more time as governments talking about the goals and the high-level promises [of a net-zero electricity grid by 2035] without spending as much time as we need to in order to recognize what a massive transformation this will mean,” Bentley said. “It is easy to talk about the end-goal, but how do you get there?”
The Canadian Electricity Assocation’s Bradley agreed “there are still a lot of outstanding questions about how we are going to turn those aspirations into actual policies. The 2035 goal is going to be very difficult to achieve in the absence of seeing exactly what the policies are that are going to move us in that direction.”
“It can take a decade to go through the processes of consultations and planning and then building and getting online,” Bradley said. “Particularly when you’re talking about big electricity projects, 2035 is tomorrow.”
Jeyakumar said “we cannot afford to wait any longer” for policies to be put in place as the decisions governments make today “will then lock us in for the next 30 or 40 years into specific technologies.”
“We need to consider it like saving for retirement,” said Gorman of the Canadian Nuclear Association. “Every year that you don’t contribute to your retirement savings just pushes your retirement one more year into the future.”
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.
Russian Utility Grid Cyberattacks reveal DHS findings on Dragonfly/Energetic Bear breaching control rooms and ICS/SCADA via vendor supply-chain spear-phishing, threatening blackouts and critical infrastructure across U.S. power utilities through stolen credentials and reconnaissance.
Key Points
State-backed ops breaching utilities via vendors to reach ICS/SCADA, risking grid disruption and control-room access.
✅ Spear-phishing and watering-hole attacks on vendor networks
✅ Stolen credentials used to reach isolated ICS/SCADA
✅ Potential to trigger localized blackouts and service disruptions
Hackers working for Russia were able to gain access to the control rooms of US electric utilities last year, allowing them to cause blackouts, federal officials tell the Wall Street Journal.
The hackers -- working for a state-sponsored group previously identified as Dragonfly or Energetic Bear -- broke into utilities' isolated networks by hacking networks belonging to third-party vendors that had relationships with the power companies, the Department of Homeland Security said in a press briefing on Monday.
Officials said the campaign had claimed hundreds of victims and is likely continuing, the Journal reported.
"They got to the point where they could have thrown switches" to disrupt the flow power, Jonathan Homer, chief of industrial-control-system analysis for DHS, told the Journal.
"While hundreds of energy and non-energy companies were targeted, the incident where they gained access to the industrial control system was a very small generation asset that would not have had any impact on the larger grid if taken offline," the DHS said in a statement Tuesday. "Over the course of the past year as we continued to investigate the activity, we learned additional information which would be helpful to industry in defending against this threat."
Organizations running the nation's energy, nuclear and other critical infrastructure have become frequent targets for cyberattacks in recent years due to their ability to cause immediate chaos, whether it's starting a blackout or blocking traffic signals. These systems are often vulnerable because of antiquated software and the high costs of upgrading infrastructure.
The report comes amid heightened tension between Russia and the US over cybersecurity, alongside US condemnation of power grid hacking in recent months. Earlier this month, US special counsel Robert Mueller filed charges against 12 Russian hackers tied to cyberattacks on the Democratic National Committee.
Hackers compromised US power utility companies' corporate networks with conventional approaches, such as spear-phishing emails and watering-hole attacks as seen in breaches at power plants across the US that target a specific group of users by infecting websites they're known to visit, the newspaper reported. After gaining access to vendor networks, hackers turned their attention to stealing credentials for access to the utility networks and familiarizing themselves with facility operations, officials said, according to the Journal.
Homeland Security didn't identify the victims, the newspaper reports, adding that some companies may not know they had been compromised because the attacks used legitimate credentials to gain access to the networks.
Cyberattacks on electrical systems aren't an academic matter. In 2016, Ukraine's grid was disrupted by cyberattacks attributed to Russia, which is engaged in territorial disputes with the country over eastern Ukraine and the Crimean peninsula. Russia has denied any involvement in targeting critical infrastructure.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order in May designed to bolster the United States' cybersecurity by protecting federal networks, critical infrastructure and the public online. One section of the order focuses on protecting the grid like electricity and water, as well as financial, health care and telecommunications systems.
The Department of Homeland Security didn't respond to a request for comment.
Renewable Electricity Generation is accelerating the shift from fossil fuels, as wind, solar, and hydro boost the electric power sector, lowering emissions and overtaking nuclear while displacing coal and natural gas in the U.S. grid.
Key Points
Renewable electricity generation is power from non-fossil sources like wind, solar, and hydro to cut emissions.
✅ Driven by wind, solar, and hydro adoption
✅ Reduces fossil fuel dependence and emissions
✅ Increasing share in the electric power sector
The transition to electric vehicles is largely driven by a need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and reduce emissions associated with burning fossil fuels, while declining US electricity use also shapes demand trends in the power sector. In 2021, 40% of the electricity produced by the electric power sector was derived from non-fossil fuel sources.
Since 2007, the increase in non-fossil fuel sources has been largely driven by “Other Renewables” which is predominantly wind and solar. This has resulted in renewables (including hydroelectric) overtaking nuclear power’s share of electricity generation in 2021 for the first time since 1984. An increasing share of electricity generation from renewables has also led to a declining share of electricity from fossil fuel sources like coal, natural gas, and petroleum, with renewables poised to eclipse coal globally as deployment accelerates.
Includes net generation of electricity from the electric power sector only, and monthly totals can fluctuate, as seen when January power generation jumped on a year-over-year basis.
Net generation of electricity is gross generation less the electrical energy consumed at the generating station(s) for station service or auxiliaries, and the projected mix of sources is sensitive to policies and natural gas prices over time. Electricity for pumping at pumped-storage plants is considered electricity for station service and is deducted from gross generation.
“Natural Gas” includes blast furnace gas and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels, while in the UK wind generation exceeded coal for the first time in 2016.
“Other Renewables” includes wood, waste, geo-thermal, solar and wind resources among others.
“Other” category includes batteries, chemicals, hydrogen, pitch, purchased steam, sulfur, miscellaneous technologies, and, beginning in 2001, non-renewable waste (municipal solid waste from non-biogenic sources, and tire-derived fuels), noting that trends vary by country, with UK low-carbon generation stalling in 2019.
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.
