The United States leads the world in manufacturing stationary fuel cells — large sources of clean energy — but the industry is warning Congress that the technology and expertise could be shipped overseas unless the federal government does more to encourage domestic production and use.
Stationary fuel cells are on-site power generators that emit almost no pollutants while producing energy. They are powerful enough to supply electricity, heating and air conditioning for a 1,000-room hotel, a 33,000-student college campus or large industrial structures such as the Pepperidge Farm plant in Connecticut and Sierra Nevada brewery in California.
The energy source is pricey, though, ranging in the millions of dollars per unit. Yet demand for the fuel cells in Japan and South Korea far outstrips domestic supply, partly because foreign governments provide tax incentives or subsidies to companies that import and use the stationary fuel cells.
"We need legislation with provisions to promote deployment of fuel cells," said Bill Foster, vice president of government business development for FuelCell Energy Inc., the world's largest manufacturer of stationary fuel cells.
Mr. Foster said that including the industry among the many "green" technologies being supported by the federal government is critical to keeping jobs in the U.S. and ramping up the use of this clean energy supply. The Obama administration's main fuel cells focus has been on cars and buses, largely overlooking the stationary sources.
UTC Power, a division of United Technologies Corp. that manufactures stationary fuel cells, said the industry "needs the government to become a customer."
"We need volume, we need customers, and I think the government could become a large consumer," said Michael Brown, vice president of government affairs and general counsel to UTC. "To have the government step up and say, 'We're going to buy 500 fuel cells a year' would jump-start the marketplace."
Mr. Foster said that his Danbury, Connecticut-based company is working with Congress for special attention in upcoming bills. He asserts that allowing more energy from fuel cells to be counted as part of a federal renewable-electricity standard (RES) would also promote wider use. The standard is part of pending energy legislation and would mandate that a certain percentage of the nation's energy come from clean sources by a certain date. The proposed RES would only allow fuel-cell energy generated from qualified biofuel sources — not natural gas — to contribute to the standard.
In the meantime, in the absence of federal legislation to drive fuel-cell use, some states are using the federal Investment Tax Credit to promote the use of stationary fuel cells. California and Connecticut also have incentive programs that when coupled with the federal tax credit have helped expand the use of stationary fuel cells.
Mr. Brown said additional incentives and partnerships with energy companies and utilities also would benefit the young industry.
The industry is also targeting Connecticut lawmakers in Congress to include fuel-cell provisions in federal legislation. Mr. Foster said Democratic Rep. Christopher S. Murphy and Democratic Rep. John B. Larson have been fuel-cell champions because FuelCell Energy Inc. and UTC Power both have their headquarters in Connecticut.
Although the technology is commercially viable, it is still relatively unknown, posing a major roadblock for the industry, the industry asserts.
Stationary fuel cells range in size, with some measuring about one-fourth the size of a tennis court. They are powered by biofuels — gasses from food processing, landfills and wastewater treatment — natural gas, ethanol, diesel and coal gas. The fuel cell is a combustion-free energy source, as it produces heat and electricity directly from chemical energy, somewhat like a battery. It also emits negligible amounts of nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides as well as relatively small amounts of carbon dioxide compared to fossil-fuel-powered electricity plants.
Fuel cells are also a baseload power source and can compete with nuclear and coal-fired electricity to provide the minimum amount of power a utility must make available to its customers. In contrast, wind, solar and other renewable sources can only supply peak-load power, power largely demanded in the late afternoon when consumers return home from work.
The upfront capital cost to produce stationary fuel cells is high, so a larger customer pool, especially in the U.S., would help bring down the cost, the industry asserts.
FuelCell Energy Inc. has sold or has orders for 91 megawatts of stationary fuel cells, with 68 megawatts of that sold to South Korea. The company said it is fearful that without government help, the domestic manufacturing industry will be transferred to nations with a greater demand — a fate that already has befallen wind turbine and solar panel makers.
UTC Power, a South Windsor, Conn.-based company, also produces stationary fuel cells that can heat and cool commercial buildings and fuel cells for transportation.
Hydro One Rate Hike reflects Ontario Energy Board approval for higher delivery charges, impacting seasonal customers more than residential classes, funding infrastructure upgrades like wood pole and transformer replacements across Ontario's medium-density service areas.
Key Points
The Hydro One rate hike is an OEB-approved delivery charge increase to fund upgrades, with impacts on seasonal users.
✅ OEB-approved delivery rate increases retroactive to 2018
✅ Seasonal customers see larger monthly bill impacts than residential
✅ Funds pole, transformer replacements and tree trimming work
Hydro One seasonal customers will face bigger increases in their bills than the utility's residential customers as a result of an Ontario Energy Board approval of a rate hike, a topic drawing attention from a utilities watchdog in other provinces as well.
Hydro One received permission to increase its delivery charge, as large projects like the Meaford hydro generation proposal are considered across Ontario, retroactive to last year.
It says it needs the money to maintain and upgrade its infrastructure, including efforts to adapt to climate change, much of which was installed in the 1950s.
The utility is notifying customers that new statements reflect higher delivery rates which were not charged in 2018 and the first half of this year, due to delay in receiving the OEB's permission, similar to delays that can follow an energy board recommendation in other jurisdictions.
The amount that customers' bills will increase by depends not only on how much electricity they use, but also on which rate class they belong to, as well as policy decisions affecting remote connections such as the First Nations electricity line in northern Ontario.
For seasonal customers such as summer cottage owners, the impact on a typical user's bill will be 2.9 per cent more per month for 2018, and 1.7 per cent per month for 2019.
There will be further increases of 1.0 per cent, 1.4 per cent and 1.1 per cent per month in 2020, 2021 and 2022 respectively.
Typical residential customers will experience smaller increases or rate freezes over the same period.
In the residential medium density class, the rate changes are a 2.0 per cent increase for last year, a decrease of 0.5 per cent this year, and an increase of 0.5 per cent in 2021. There will be no increases in 2020 and 2022.
Seasonal Rate Class — Estimated bill impact per month
2018 - 2.9 %
2019 - 1.7%
2020 - 1.0%
2021 - 1.4%
2022 - 1.1%
Residential Medium Density Rate Class — Estimated bill impact per month
2018 - 2.0%
2019 - -0.5% decrease
2020 - 0.0%
2021 - 0.5%
2022 - 0.0%
A Hydro One spokesperson told tbnewswatch.com that over the next three years, the utility's upgrading plan includes reliability investments such as replacing more than 24,000 wood poles across the province as well as numerous transformers.
In the Thunder Bay area, the spokesperson said, some of the revenue generated by the higher delivery rates will cover the cost of replacing more than 180 poles and trimming hazardous trees around 3,200 kilometres of overhead power lines while sharing electrical safety tips with customers.
Alberta Solar Power is accelerating as renewable energy investment, PPAs, and utility-scale projects expand the grid, with independent power producers and foreign capital outperforming AESO forecasts in oil-and-gas-rich markets across Alberta and Calgary.
Key Points
Alberta Solar Power is a fast-growing provincial market, driven by PPAs and private investment, outpacing AESO forecasts.
✅ Utility-scale projects and PPAs expand capacity beyond AESO outlooks
✅ Private and foreign capital drive independent power producers
✅ Costs near $70/MWh challenge >$100/MWh assumptions
Solar power is beating expectations in oil and gas rich Alberta, where the renewable energy source is poised to expand dramatically amid a renewable energy surge in the coming years as international power companies invest in the province.
Fresh capital is being deployed in the Alberta’s electricity generation sector for both renewable and natural gas-fired power projects after years of uncertainty caused by changes and reversals in the province’s power market, said Duane Reid-Carlson, president of power consulting firm EDC Associates, who advises renewable power developers on electric projects in the province.
“From the mix of projects that we see in the queue at the (Alberta Electric System Operator) and the projects that have been announced, Alberta, a powerhouse for both green energy and fossil fuels, has no shortage of thermal and renewable projects,” Reid-Carlson said, adding that he sees “a great mix” of independent power companies and foreign firms looking to build renewable projects in Alberta.
Alberta is a unique power market in Canada because its electricity supply is not dominated by a Crown corporation such as BC Hydro, Hydro One or Hydro Quebec. Instead, a mix of private-sector companies and a few municipally owned utilities generate electricity, transmit and distribute that power to households and industries under long-term contracts.
Last week, Perimeter Solar Inc., backed by Danish solar power investor Obton AS, announced Sept. 30 that it had struck a deal to sell renewable energy to Calgary-based pipeline giant TC Energy Corp. with 74.25 megawatts of electricity from a new 130-MW solar power project immediately south of Calgary. Neither company disclosed the costs of the transaction or the project.
“We are very pleased that of all the potential off-takers in the market for energy, we have signed with a company as reputable as TC Energy,” Obton CEO Anders Marcus said in a release announcing the deal, which it called “the largest negotiated energy supply agreement with a North American energy company.”
Perimeter expects to break ground on the project, which will more than double the amount of solar power being produced in the province, by the end of this year.
A report published Monday by the Energy Information Administration, a unit of the U.S. Department of Energy, estimated that renewable energy powered 3 per cent of Canada’s energy consumption in 2018.
Between the Claresholm project and other planned solar installations, utility companies are poised to install far more solar power than the province is currently planning for, even as Alberta faces challenges with solar expansion today.
University of Calgary adjunct professor Blake Shaffer said it was “ironic” that the Claresholm Solar project was announced the exact same day as the Alberta Electric System Operator released a forecast that under-projected the amount of solar in the province’s electric grid.
The power grid operator (AESO) released its forecast on Sept. 30, which predicted that solar power projects would provide just 1 per cent of Alberta’s electricity supply by 2030 at 231 megawatts.
Shaffer said the AESO, which manages and operates the province’s electricity grid, is assuming that on a levelized basis solar power will need a price over $100 per megawatt hour for new investment. However, he said, based on recent solar contracts for government infrastructure projects, the cost is closer to $70 MW/h.
Most forecasting organizations like the International Energy Agency have had to adjust their forecasts for solar power adoption higher in the past, as growth of the renewable energy source has outperformed expectations.
Calgary-based Greengate Power has also proposed a $500-million, 400-MW solar project near Vulcan, a town roughly one-hour by car southeast of Calgary.
“So now we’re getting close to 700 MW (of solar power),” Shaffer said, which is three times the AESO forecast.
Canadian EV Manufacturing is accelerating with GM, Ford, and Project Arrow, integrating cross-border supply chains, battery production, rare-earths like lithium and cobalt, autonomous tech, and home charging to drive clean mobility and decarbonization.
Key Points
Canadian EV manufacturing spans electric and autonomous vehicles, domestic batteries, and integrated US-Canada trade.
✅ GM and Ford retool plants for EVs and autonomous production
✅ Project Arrow showcases Canadian zero-emission supply capabilities
✅ Lithium, cobalt, and battery hubs target cross-border resilience
The storied North American automotive industry, the ultimate showcase of Canada’s high-tensile trade ties with the United States and emerging Canada-U.S. collaboration on EVs momentum, is about to navigate a dramatic hairpin turn.
But as the Big Three veer into the all-electric, autonomous era, some Canadians want to seize the moment and take the wheel.
“There’s a long shadow between the promise and the execution, but all the pieces are there,” says Flavio Volpe, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association.
“We went from a marriage on the rocks to one that both partners are committed to. It could be the best second chapter ever.”
Volpe is referring specifically to GM, which announced late last month an ambitious plan to convert its entire portfolio of vehicles to an all-electric platform by 2035.
But that decision is just part of a cascading transformation across the industry, marking an EV inflection point with existential ramifications for one of the most tightly integrated cross-border manufacturing and supply-chain relationships in the world.
China is already working hard to become the “source of a new way” to power vehicles, President Joe Biden warned last week.
“We just have to step up.”
Canada has both the resources and expertise to do the same, says Volpe, whose ambitious Project Arrow concept — a homegrown zero-emissions vehicle named for the 1950s-era Avro interceptor jet — is designed to showcase exactly that, as recent EV assembly deals in Canada underscore.
“We’re going to prove to the market, we’re going to prove to the (manufacturers) around the planet, that everything that goes into your zero-emission vehicle can be made or sourced here in Canada,” he says.
“If somebody wants to bring what we did over the line and make 100,000 of them a year, I’ll hand it to them.”
GM earned the ire of Canadian auto workers in 2018 by announcing the closure of its assembly plant in Oshawa, Ont. It later resurrected the facility with a $170-million investment to retool it for autonomous vehicles.
“It was, ‘You closed Oshawa, how dare you?’ And I was one of the ‘How dare you’ people,” Volpe says.
“Well, now that they’ve reopened Oshawa, you sit there and you open your eyes to the commitment that General Motors made.”
Ford, too, has entered the fray, promising $1.8 billion to retool its sprawling landmark facility in Oakville, Ont., to build EVs.
It’s a leap of faith of sorts, considering what market experts say is ongoing consumer doubt about EVs and EV supply shortages that drive wait times.
“Range anxiety” — the persistent fear of a depleted battery at the side of the road — remains a major concern, even though it’s less of a problem than most people think.
Consulting firm Deloitte Canada, which has been tracking automotive consumer trends for more than a decade, found three-quarters of future EV buyers it surveyed planned to charge their vehicles at home overnight.
“The difference between what is a perceived issue in a consumer’s mind and what is an actual issue is actually quite negligible,” Ryan Robinson, Deloitte’s automotive research leader, says in an interview.
“It’s still an issue, full stop, and that’s something that the industry is going to have to contend with.”
So, too, is price, especially with the end of the COVID-19 pandemic still a long way off. Deloitte’s latest survey, released last month, found 45 per cent of future buyers in Canada hope to spend less than $35,000 — a tall order when most base electric-vehicle models hover between $40,000 and $45,000.
“You put all of that together and there’s still, despite the electric-car revolution hype, some major challenges that a lot of stakeholders that touch the automotive industry face,” Robinson says.
“It’s not just government, it’s not just automakers, but there are a variety of stakeholders that have a role to play in making sure that Canadians are ready to make the transition over to electric mobility.”
With protectionism no longer a dirty word in the United States and Biden promising to prioritize American workers and suppliers, the Canadian government’s job remains the same as it ever was: making sure the U.S. understands Canada’s mission-critical role in its own economic priorities.
“We’re both going to be better off on both sides of the border, as we have been in the past, if we orient ourselves toward this global competition as one force,” says Gerald Butts, vice-chairman of the political-risk consultancy Eurasia Group and a former principal secretary to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
“It served us extraordinarily well in the past … and I have no reason to believe it won’t serve us well in the future.”
Last month, GM announced a billion-dollar plan to build its new all-electric BrightDrop EV600 van in Ingersoll, Ont., at Canada’s first large-scale EV manufacturing plant for delivery vehicles.
That investment, Volpe says, assumes Canada will take the steps necessary to help build a homegrown battery industry — with projects such as a new Niagara-region battery plant pointing the way — drawing on the country’s rare-earth resources like lithium and cobalt that are waiting to be extracted in northern Ontario, Quebec and elsewhere.
Given that the EV industry is still in his infancy, the free market alone won’t be enough to ensure those resources can be extracted and developed, he says.
“General Motors made a billion-dollar bet on Canada because it’s going to assume that the Canadian government — this one or the next one — is going to commit” to building that business.
Such an investment would pay dividends well beyond the auto sector, considering the federal Liberal government’s commitment to lowering greenhouse gas-emissions, including a 2035 EV mandate, and meeting targets set out in the Paris climate accord.
“If you make investments in renewable energy and utility storage using battery technology, you can build an industry at scale that the auto industry can borrow,” Volpe says.
Major manufacturing, retail and office facilities would be able to use that technology to help “shave the peak” off Canada’s GHG emissions and achieve those targets, all the while paving the way for a self-sufficient electric-vehicle industry.
“You’d be investing in the exact same technology you’d use in a car.”
There’s one problem, says Robinson: the lithium-ion batteries on roads right now might not be where the industry ultimately lands.
“We’re not done with with battery technology,” Robinson says. “What you don’t want to do is invest in a technology that is that is rapidly evolving, and could potentially become obsolete going forward.”
Fuel cells — energy-efficient, hydrogen-powered units that work like batteries, but without the need for constant recharging — continue to be part of the conversation, he adds.
“The amount of investment is huge, and you want to be sure that you’re making the right decision, so you don’t find yourself behind the curve just as all that capacity is coming online.”
EU-UK Coal Power Decline 2020 underscores Covid-19's impact on power generation, with renewables rising, carbon emissions falling, and electricity demand down, revealing resilient grids and accelerating the energy transition across European markets.
Key Points
Covid-19's impact on EU-UK power: coal down, renewables up, lower emissions intensity and reduced electricity demand.
✅ Coal generation down 25.5% EU-UK; 29% in March 10-April 10 period
✅ Renewables share up to 46%; grids remained stable and flexible
Coal based power generation has fallen by over a quarter (25.5%) across the European Union (EU) and United Kingdom (UK) in the first three months of 2020, compared to 2019, as a result of the response to Covid-19, with renewable energy reaching a 43% share, as wind and solar outpaced gas across the EU, according to new analysis by the technology group Wärtsilä.
The impact is even more stark in the last month, with coal generation collapsing by almost one third (29%) between March 10 and April 10 compared to the same period in 2019, making up only 12% of total EU and UK generation. By contrast, renewables delivered almost half (46%) of generation – an increase of 8% compared to 2019.
In total, demand for electricity across the continent is down by one tenth (10%), mirroring global demand declines of around 15%, due to measures taken to combat Covid-19, the biggest drop in demand since the Second World War. The result is an unprecedented fall in carbon emissions from the power sector, with emission intensity falling by 19.5% compared to the same March 10-April 10 period last year. The analysis comes from the Wärtsilä Energy Transition Lab, a new free-to-use data platform developed by Wärtsilä to help the industry, policy makers and the public understand the impact of Covid-19 on European electricity markets and analyse what this means for the future design and operation of its energy systems. The goal is to help accelerate the transition to 100% renewables.
Björn Ullbro, Vice President for Europe & Africa at Wärtsilä Energy Business, said: “The impact of the Covid-19 crisis on European energy systems is extraordinary. We are seeing levels of renewable electricity that some people believed would cause systems to collapse, yet they haven’t – in fact they are coping well. The question is, what does this mean for the future?”
“What we can see today is how our energy systems cope with much more renewable power – knowledge that will be invaluable, aligning with IAEA low-carbon insights, to accelerate the energy transition. We are making this new platform freely available to support the energy industry to adapt and use the momentum this tragic crisis has created to deliver a better, cleaner energy system, faster.”
The figures mark a dramatic shift in Europe’s energy mix – one that was not anticipated to occur until the end of the decade. The impact of the Covid-19 crisis has effectively accelerated the energy transition in the short-term, even as later lockdowns saw power demand hold firm in parts of Europe, providing a unique opportunity to see how energy systems function with far higher levels of renewables.
Ullbro added: “Electricity demand across Europe has fallen due to the lockdown measures applied by governments to stop the spread of the coronavirus. However, total renewable generation has remained at pre-crisis levels with low electricity prices, combined with renewables-friendly policy measures, crowding out gas and fossil fuel power generation, especially coal. This sets the scene for the next decade of the energy transition.”
These Europe-wide impacts are mirrored at a national level, for example:
In the UK, renewables now have a 43% share of generation, following a stall in low-carbon progress in 2019 (up 10% on the same March 10-April 10 period in 2019) with coal power down 35% and gas down 24%.
Germany has seen the share of renewables reach 60% (up 12%) and coal generation fall 44%, resulting in a fall in the carbon intensity of its electricity of over 30%.
Spain currently has 49% renewables with coal power down by 41%.
Italy has seen the steepest fall in demand, down 21% so far.
An industry first, the Wärtsilä Energy Transition Lab has been specifically developed as an open-data platform for the energy industry to understand the impact of Covid-19 and help accelerate the energy transition. The tool provides detailed data on electricity generation, demand and pricing for all 27 EU countries and the UK, combining Entso-E data in a single, easy to use platform. It will also allow users to model how systems could operate in future with higher renewables, as global power demand surpasses pre-pandemic levels, helping pinpoint problem areas and highlight where to focus policy and investment.
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.
Ukraine Electricity Exports resume to the European grid, starting with Moldova and expanding to Poland, Slovakia, and Romania, signaling energy security, grid resilience, added megawatts, and recovery after Russian strikes with support and renewables.
Key Points
Ukraine Electricity Exports are resumed sales of surplus power to EU neighbors, reflecting grid recovery and resilience.
✅ Initial deliveries to Moldova; Poland, Slovakia, Romania to follow.
✅ Extra capacity from repairs, warmer demand, and renewables.
✅ Exports may vary amid ongoing Russian strikes risk.
Ukraine began resuming electricity exports to European countries on Tuesday, its energy minister said, a dramatic turnaround from six months ago when fierce Russian bombardment of power stations plunged much of the country into darkness in a bid to demoralize the population.
The announcement by Energy Minister Herman Halushchenko that Ukraine was not only meeting domestic consumption demands but also ready to restart exports to its neighbors was a clear message that Moscow’s attempt to weaken Ukraine by targeting its infrastructure did not work.
Ukraine’s domestic energy demand is “100%” supplied, he told The Associated Press in an interview, and it has reserves to export due to the “titanic work” of its engineers and international partners.
Russia ramped up infrastructure attacks in September, when waves of missiles and exploding drones destroyed about half of Ukraine’s energy system. Power cuts were common across the country as temperatures dropped below freezing and tens of millions struggled to keep warm.
Moscow said the strikes were aimed at weakening Ukraine’s ability to defend itself, and has also moved to reactivate the Zaporizhzhia plant through new power lines, while Western officials said the blackouts that caused civilians to suffer amounted to war crimes. Ukrainians said the timing was designed to destroy their morale as the war marked its first anniversary.
Ukraine had to stop exporting electricity in October to meet domestic needs.
Engineers worked around the clock, often risking their lives to come into work at power plants and keep the electricity flowing. Kyiv’s allies also provided help. In December, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced $53 million in bilateral aid to help the country acquire electricity grid equipment, and USAID mobile gas turbine plant support, on top of $55 million for energy sector support.
Much more work remains to be done, Halushchenko said. Ukraine needs funding to repair damaged generation and transmission lines, and revenue from electricity exports would be one way to do that.
The first country to receive Ukraine’s energy exports will be Moldova, he said.
Besides the heroic work by engineers and Western aid, warmer temperatures are enabling the resumption of exports by making domestic demand lower, even as Germany’s coal generation shapes regional power flows.
Renewables like solar and wind power also come into play as temperatures rise, taking some pressure off nuclear and coal-fired power plants.
But it’s unclear if Ukraine can keep up exports amid the constant threat of Russian bombardment, with any potential agreement on power plant attacks still uncertain.
“Unfortunately now a lot of things depend on the war,” Halushchenko said. “I would say we feel quite confident now until the next winter.”
Exports to Poland, Slovakia and Romania are also on schedule to resume, he said.
“Today we are starting with Moldova, and we are talking about Poland, we are talking about Slovakia and Romania,” Halushchenko added, noting that how much will depend on their needs.
“For Poland, we have only one line that allows us to export 200 megawatts, but I think this month we will finish another line which will increase this to an additional 400 MW, so these figures could change,” he said.
Export revenue will depend on fluctuating electricity prices in Europe, where stunted hydro and nuclear output may affect recovery. In 2022, while Ukraine was still able to export energy, Ukrainian companies averaged 40 million to 70 million euros a month depending on prices, Halushchenko said.
