Although nuclear power technology major Areva S.A. and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited NPCIL have signed general nuclear agreements and specific agreements concerned with the construction of the nuclear power plant in Jaitapur, Maharashtra, during the French President's visit to India, continuing concerns about nuclear liability have hindered the signing of the contract for the first two reactors of the plant.
Areva and NPCIL signed a general framework agreement for the building of the European Pressurized Reactors EPRs and an agreement for "early works" at the nuclear power plant, but what has been described as a "lack of clarity" about liability concerns among French nuclear companies stopped the contract signing for the first two reactors.
A joint statement issued by the French President Nikolas Sarkozy and India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh indicated that negotiations have reached an advanced stage. "Following India's enactment of a civil nuclear liability legislation, both countries stand ready to further exchange views on this issue, so as to ensure the appropriate framework for the sound development of their cooperation," he said.
The proposed Jaitapur power plant will have six EPR-type reactors, which will combine to generate about 10,000 MW of electricity, and is estimated to cost about $25 billion. A bilateral agreement between France and India signed in September 2008 led to the signing of a memorandum of understanding between Areva and NPCIL in February 2009 for the Jaitapur plant.
Further agreements were signed between India and France during the French President's visit that covered intellectual property rights and the confidentiality of information concerned with the development of peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
In another France-India agreement, the Hindustan Construction Company Limited HCC, which has constructed more than 50 of India's existing installed nuclear power capacity, has signed a cooperation agreement with VINCI Construction Grands Projets VCGP, the civil engineering arm of VINCI S.A.
The agreement covers potential collaborations on power, water, transport and other infrastructure projects, within India and in other countries. As VCGP is already involved with Areva in the development of the EPR program, the agreement also will specifically target participation in the Jaitapur nuclear project.
The Indian government and NPCIL plan to increase the installed nuclear generating capacity from the current 4,120 MW to 63,000 MW by 2032. About 40,000 MW of this extra capacity is planned to be delivered through technical collaboration with other countries, and the cooperation agreement between HCC and VCGP is seen as a positioning move to take a major role in the new plant build program.
Berlin Flying Electric Ferry drives sustainable urban mobility with zero-emission water transit, advanced electric propulsion, quiet operations, and smart-city integration, easing congestion, improving air quality, and connecting waterways for efficient, climate-aligned public transport.
Key Points
A zero-emission electric ferry for Berlin's waterways, cutting congestion and pollution to advance sustainable mobility.
✅ Zero emissions with advanced electric propulsion systems
✅ Quiet, efficient water transit that eases road congestion
✅ Smart-city integration, improving access and air quality
Berlin has taken a groundbreaking step toward sustainable urban mobility with the introduction of its innovative flying electric ferry. This pioneering vessel, designed to revolutionize water-based transportation, represents a significant leap forward in eco-friendly travel options and reflects the city’s commitment to addressing climate change, complementing its zero-emission bus fleet initiatives while enhancing urban mobility.
A New Era of Urban Transport
The flying electric ferry, part of a broader initiative to modernize transportation in Berlin, showcases cutting-edge technology aimed at reducing carbon emissions and improving efficiency in urban transit, and mirrors progress seen with hybrid-electric ferries in the U.S.
Equipped with advanced electric propulsion systems, the ferry operates quietly and emits zero emissions during its journeys, making it an environmentally friendly alternative to traditional diesel-powered boats.
This innovation is particularly relevant for cities like Berlin, where water transportation can play a crucial role in alleviating congestion on roads and enhancing overall mobility. The ferry is designed to navigate the city’s extensive waterways, providing residents and visitors with a unique and efficient way to traverse the urban landscape.
Features and Design
The ferry’s design emphasizes both functionality and comfort. Its sleek, aerodynamic shape minimizes resistance in the water, allowing for faster travel times while consuming less energy, similar to emerging battery-electric high-speed ferries now under development in the U.S. Additionally, the vessel is equipped with state-of-the-art navigation systems that ensure safety and precision during operations.
Passengers can expect a comfortable onboard experience, complete with spacious seating and amenities designed to enhance their journey. The ferry aims to offer an enjoyable ride while contributing to Berlin’s vision of a sustainable and interconnected transportation network.
Addressing Urban Challenges
Berlin, like many major cities worldwide, faces significant challenges related to transportation, including traffic congestion, pollution, and the need for efficient public transit options. The introduction of the flying electric ferry aligns with the city’s goals to promote greener modes of transportation and reduce reliance on fossil fuels, as seen with B.C.'s electric ferries supported by public investment.
By offering an alternative to conventional commuting methods and complementing battery-electric buses deployments in Toronto that expand zero-emission options, the ferry has the potential to significantly reduce the number of vehicles on the roads. This shift could lead to lower traffic congestion levels, improved air quality, and a more pleasant urban environment for residents and visitors alike.
Economic and Environmental Benefits
The economic implications of the flying electric ferry are equally promising. As an innovative mode of transportation, it can attract tourism and stimulate local businesses near docking areas, especially as ports adopt an all-electric berth model that reduces local emissions. Increased accessibility to various parts of the city may lead to greater foot traffic in commercial districts, benefiting retailers and service providers.
From an environmental standpoint, the ferry contributes to Berlin’s commitment to achieving climate neutrality. The city has set ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the implementation of electric vessels is a key component of this strategy. By prioritizing clean energy solutions, Berlin is positioning itself as a leader in sustainable urban transport.
A Vision for the Future
The introduction of the flying electric ferry is not merely a technological advancement; it represents a vision for the future of urban mobility. As cities around the world grapple with the impacts of climate change and the need for sustainable infrastructure, Berlin’s innovative approach could serve as a model for other urban centers looking to enhance their transportation systems, alongside advances in electric planes that could reshape regional travel.
Furthermore, this initiative is part of a broader trend toward electrification in the maritime sector. With advancements in battery technology and renewable energy sources, electric ferries and boats are becoming more viable options for urban transportation. As more cities embrace these solutions, the potential for cleaner, more efficient public transport grows.
Community Engagement and Education
To ensure the success of the flying electric ferry, community engagement and education will be vital. Residents must be informed about the benefits of using this new mode of transport, and outreach efforts can help build excitement and awareness around its launch. By fostering a sense of ownership among the community, the ferry can become an integral part of Berlin’s transportation landscape.
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.
Ontario-Quebec Electricity Trade Agreement ends as Ontario pivots to IESO procurement, hydropower alternatives, natural gas capacity, and energy auctions, impacting grid reliability, power imports, and GHG emissions across both provincial markets.
Key Points
A seven-year power import pact; Ontario will end it, shifting to IESO procurement and gas capacity.
✅ Seasonal hydropower exchange of 2.3 TWh annually.
✅ IESO projects Quebec supply constraints by decade end.
The Ontario government does not plan to renew the Ontario-Quebec electricity trade agreement, Radio-Canada is reporting.
The seven-year contract, which expires next year, aims to reduce Ontario's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by buying 2.3 Terawatt-hours of electricity from Quebec annually — that corresponds to about seven per cent of Hydro-Quebec's average annual exports.
The announcement comes as the provincially owned Quebec utility continues its legal battle over a plan to export power to Massachusetts.
The Ontario agreement has guaranteed a seasonal exchange of energy, since Quebec has a power surplus in summer, and the province's electricity needs increase in the winter. Ontario plans on exercising its last and only option in the summer of 2026, for a block of 500 megawatts.
The office of the Ontario Minister of Energy Todd Smith says the province will save money by relying "on a competitive procurement process" instead, amid debates over clean, affordable electricity policy in Ontario. And, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), the equivalent of Hydro-Quebec in Ontario, added that, at any rate, Quebec is expected to "run out of electricity in the middle or at the end of the decade."
During the Quebec election campaign, Premier Francois Legault said his province needed to increase hydroelectricity production because he is expecting demand for hydroelectricity to increase by an additional 100 terawatt-hours in the coming decades — half of Hydro-Quebec's current annual output.
Coalition Avenir Quebec pitches more hydro dams to Quebec voters The provinces will still continue to buy and sell power, reaching deals through annual energy auctions.
Eloise Edom, an associate researcher at Polytechnique Montreal's Institut de l'energie Trottier, says the announcement came as somewhat of a surprise because "we're still talking about a lot of energy."
Hydro-Quebec refused to comment on "the SIERE [Independent Electricity System Operator]'s intentions for the agreement, which ends next year," said company spokesperson Lynn St-Laurent.
No green options Yet Ontario is running out of electricity, even as questions persist about whether it is embracing clean power to meet demand, in part because of plans to refurbish nuclear reactors at the Bruce and Darlington generator stations.
Windsor has already lost out on a $2.5-billion factory because the region is short of electricity for new industrial loads. And by 2025, Toronto will run out of power for the electrification of its transit system, according to the latest estimates from the IESO.
The Ford government recently announced that it hopes to extend the life of the Pickering nuclear station amid ongoing debate. It is also evaluating the possibility of increasing hydroelectricity production at its existing dams.
For now, Ontario is banking on its natural gas plants to meet demand, which have won most recent IESO tenders for contracts running until 2026. Last Friday, the province announced that it was going to buy an additional 1,500 megawatts by 2027.
"The [Ontario energy] minister's expectations may be that the increase in natural gas prices is temporary and that it will fade," energy economist Jean-Thomas Bernard said. "With this in mind, he probably does not want to sign a long-term contract [with Hydro-Quebec] and prefers to buy electricity on a day-to-day basis and through calls for tenders."
If the Quebec deal expires, Ontario, Canada's second highest GHG emitter, would have to increase its emissions for the sector, at least in the medium term, with electricity getting dirtier as gas fills the gap.
Last year, the IESO found that it would be very difficult to set a moratorium on natural gas before 2030. The IESO must produce a final report on the subject for the energy minister by the end of November.
Global Decarbonization Strategies align renewable energy, electrification, clean air policies, IMO sulfur cap, LNG fuels, and the EU 2050 roadmap to cut carbon intensity and meet Paris Agreement targets via EVs and efficiency.
Key Points
Frameworks that cut emissions via renewables, EVs, efficiency, cleaner marine fuels, and EU policy roadmaps.
✅ Renewables scale as wind and solar outcompete new coal and gas.
✅ Electrification of transport grows as EV costs fall and charging expands.
✅ IMO 2020 sulfur cap and LNG shift cut shipping emissions and particulates.
Are we doing enough to save the planet? Silly question. The latest prognosis from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made for gloomy reading. Fundamental to the Paris Agreement is the target of keeping global average temperatures from rising beyond 2°C. The UN argues that radical measures are needed, and investment incentives for clean electricity are seen as critical by many leaders to accelerate progress to meet that target.
Renewable power and electrification of transport are the pillars of decarbonization. It’s well underway in renewables - the collapse in costs make wind and solar generation competitive with new build coal and gas.
Renewables’ share of the global power market will triple by 2040 from its current level of 6% according to our forecasts.
The consumption side is slower, awaiting technological breakthrough and informed by efforts in countries such as New Zealand’s electricity transition to replace fossil fuels with electricity. The lower battery costs needed for electric vehicles (EVs) to compete head on and displace internal combustion engine (ICE) cars are some years away. These forces only start to have a significant impact on global carbon intensity in the 2030s. Our forecasts fall well short of the 2°C target, as does the IEA’s base case scenario.
Yet we can’t just wait for new technology to come to the rescue. There are encouraging signs that society sees the need to deal with a deteriorating environment. Three areas of focus came out in discussion during Wood Mackenzie’s London Energy Forum - unrelated, different in scope and scale, each pointing the way forward.
First, clean air in cities. China has shown how to clean up a local environment quickly. The government reacted to poor air quality in Beijing and other major cities by closing older coal power plants and forcing energy intensive industry and the residential sector to shift away from coal. The country’s return on investment will include a substantial future health care dividend.
European cities are introducing restrictions on diesel cars to improve air quality. London’s 2017 “toxicity charge” is a precursor of an Ultra-Low Emission Zone in 2019, and aligns with UK net-zero policy changes that affect transport planning, to be extended across much of the city by 2020. Paris wants to ban diesel cars from the city centre by 2025 and ICE vehicles by 2030. Barcelona, Madrid, Hamburg and Stuttgart are hatching similar plans.
College Promise In California: Community-Wide Efforts To Support Student Success
Second, desulphurisation of global shipping. High sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) meets around 3.5 million barrels per day (b/d) of the total marine market of 5 million b/d. A maximum of 3.5% sulphur content is allowed currently. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) implements a 0.5% limit on all shipping in 2020, dramatically reducing the release of sulphur oxides into the atmosphere.
Some ships will switch to very low sulphur fuel oil, of which only around 1.4 million b/d will be available in 2020. Others will have to choose between investing in scrubbers or buying premium-priced low sulphur marine gas oil.
Longer-term, lower carbon-intensity gas is a winner as liquefied natural gas becomes fuel of choice for many newbuilds. Marine LNG demand climbs from near zero to 50 million tonnes per annum (tpa) by 2040 on our forecasts, behind only China, India and Japan as a demand centre. LNG will displace over 1 million b/d of oil demand in shipping by 2040.
Third, Europe’s radical decarbonisation plans. Already in the vanguard of emissions reductions policy, the European Commission is proposing to reduce carbon emissions for new cars and vans by 30% by 2030 versus 2020. The targets come with incentives for car manufacturers linked to the uptake of EVs.
The 2050 roadmap, presently at the concept stage, envisages a far more demanding regime, with EU electricity plans for 2050 implying a much larger power system. The mooted 80% reduction in emissions compared with 1990 will embrace all sectors. Power and transport are already moving in this direction, but the legacy fuel mix in many other sectors will be disrupted, too.
Near zero-energy buildings and homes might be possible with energy efficiency improvements, renewables and heat pumps. Electrification, recycling and bioenergy could reduce fossil fuel use in energy intensive sectors like steel and aluminium, and Europe’s oil majors going electric illustrates how incumbents are adapting. Some sectors will cite the risk decarbonisation poses to Europe’s global competitiveness. If change is to come, industry will need to build new partnerships with society to meet these targets.
The 2050 roadmap signals the ambition and will be game changing for Europe if it is adopted. It would provide a template for a global roll out that would go a long way toward meeting UN’s concerns.
Vogtle Units 3 and 4 are Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors under construction in Waynesboro, Georgia, led by Southern Nuclear, Georgia Power, and Bechtel, adding 2,234 MWe of carbon-free baseload power with DOE loan guarantees.
Key Points
Vogtle Units 3 and 4 are AP1000 reactors in Georgia delivering 2,234 MWe of low-carbon baseload electricity.
✅ Each unit: Westinghouse AP1000, 1,117 MWe capacity.
✅ Managed by Southern Nuclear, built by Bechtel.
✅ DOE loan guarantees support financing and risk.
Construction is ongoing for two new nuclear reactors, Units 3 and 4, at Georgia Power's Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Waynesboro, Ga. the first new nuclear reactors to be constructed in the United Stated in 30 years, mirroring a new U.S. reactor startup that will provide electricity to more than 500,000 homes and businesses once operational.
Construction on Unit 3 started in March 2013 with an expected completion date of November 2021. For Unit 4, work began in November 2013 with a targeted delivery date of November 2022. Each unit houses a Westinghouse AP1000 (Advanced Passive) nuclear reactor that can generate about 1,117 megawatts (MWe). The reactor pressure vessels and steam generators are from Doosan, a South Korean firm.
The pouring of concrete was delayed to 2013 due to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission issuing a license amendment which permitted the use of higher-strength concrete for the foundations of the reactors, eliminating the need to make additional modifications to reinforcing steel bar.
The work is occurring in the middle of an operational nuclear facility, and the construction area contains many cranes and storage areas for the prefabricated parts being installed. Space also is needed for various trucks making deliveries, especially concrete.
The reactor buildings, circular in shape, are several hundred feet apart from one another and each one has an annex building and a turbine island structure. The estimated total price for the project is expected in the $18.7 billion range. Bechtel Corporation, which built Units 1 and 2, was brought in January 2017 to take over the construction that is being overseen by Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNOC), which operates the plant.
The project will require the equivalent of 3,375 miles of sidewalk; the towers for Units 3 and 4 are 60 stories high and have two million pound CA modules; the office space for both units is 300,000 sq. ft.; and there are more than 8,000 construction workers over 30 percent being military veterans. The new reactors will create 800 permanent jobs.
Southern Nuclear and Georgia Power took over management of the construction project in 2017 after Westinghouse's Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The plant, built in the late 1980s with Unit 1 becoming operational in 1987 and Unit 2 in 1989, is jointly owned by Georgia Power (45.7 percent), Oglethorpe Power Corporation (30 percent), Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (22.7 percent) and Dalton Utilities (1.6 percent).
"Significant progress has been made on the construction of Vogtle 3 and 4 since the transition to Southern Nuclear following the Westinghouse bankruptcy," said Paul Bowers, Chairman, President and CEO of Georgia Power. "While there will always be challenges in building the first new nuclear units in this country in more than 30 years, we remain focused on reducing project risk and maintaining the current project momentum in order to provide our customers with a new carbon-free energy source that will put downward pressure on rates for 60 to 80 years."
The Vogtle and Hatch nuclear plants currently provide more than 20 percent of Georgia's annual electricity needs. Vogtle will be the only four-unit nuclear facility in the country. The energy is needed to meet the rising demand for electricity as the state expects to have more than four million new residents by 2030.
The plant's expansion is the largest ongoing construction project in Georgia and one of the largest in the state's history, while comparable refurbishments such as the Bruce reactor overhaul progress in Canada. Last March an agreement was signed to secure approximately $1.67 billion in additional Department of Energy loan guarantees. Georgia Power previously secured loan guarantees of $3.46 billion.
The signing highlighted the placement of the top of the containment vessel for Unit 3, echoing the Hinkley Point C roof lift seen in the U.K., which signified that all modules and large components had been placed inside it. The containment vessel is a high-integrity steel structure that houses critical plant components. The top head is 130 ft. in diameter, 37 ft. tall, and weighs nearly 1.5 million lbs. It is comprised of 58 large plates, welded together with each more than 1.5 in. thick.
"From the very beginning, public and private partners have stood with us," said Southern Company Chairman, President and CEO Tom Fanning. "Everyone involved in the project remains focused on sustaining our momentum."
Bechtel has completed more than 80 percent of the project, and the major milestones for 2019 have been met, aligning with global nuclear milestones reported across the industry, including setting the Unit 4 pressurizer inside the containment vessel last February, which will provide pressure control inside the reactor coolant system. More specialized construction workers, including craft labor, have been hired via the addition of approximately 300 pipefitters and 350 electricians since November 2018. Another 500 to 1,000 craft workers have been more recently brought in.
A key accomplishment occurred last December when 1,300 cu. yds. of concrete were poured inside the Unit 4 containment vessel during a 21-hour operation that involved more than 100 workers and more than 120 truckloads of concrete. In 2018 alone, more than 23,000 cu. yds. of concrete were poured part of the nearly 600,000 cu. yds. placed since construction started, and the installation of more than 16,200 yds. of piping.
Progress also has been solid for Unit 3. Last January the integrated head package (IHP) was set inside the containment vessel. The IHP, weighing 475,000 lbs. and standing 48 ft. tall, combines several separate components in one assembly and allows the rapid removal of the reactor vessel head during a refueling outage. One month earlier, the placement of the third and final ring for containment vessel, and the placement of the fourth and final reactor coolant pump (RCP, 375,000 lbs.), were executed.
"Weighing just under 2 million pounds, approximately 38 feet high and with a diameter of 130 feet, the ring is the fourth of five sections that make up the containment vessel," stated a Georgia Power press release. "The RCPs are mounted to the steam generator and serve a critical part of the reactor coolant system, circulating water from the steam generator to the reactor vessel, allowing sufficient heat transfer for safe plant operation. In the same month, the Unit 3 shield building with additional double-decker panels, was placed.
According to a construction update from Georgia Power, a total of eight six-panel sections have been placed, with each one measuring 20 ft. tall and 114 ft. wide, weighing up to 300,000 lbs. To date, more than half of the shield building panels have been placed for Unit 3. The shield building panels, fabricated in Newport News, Va., provide structural support to the containment cooling water supply and protect the containment vessel, which houses the reactor vessel.
Building the reactors is challenging due to the design, reflecting lessons from advanced reactors now being deployed. Unit 3 will have 157 fuel assemblies, with each being a little over 14 ft. long. They are crucial to fuelling the reactor, and once the initial fueling is completed, nearly one-third of the fuel assemblies will be replaced for each re-fuelling operation. In addition to the Unit 3 containment top, placement crews installed three low-pressure turbine rotors and the generator rotor inside the unit's turbine building.
Last November, major systems testing got underway at Unit 3 as the site continues to transition from construction toward system operations. The Open Vessel Testing will demonstrate how water flows from the key safety systems into the reactor vessel ensuring the paths are not blocked or constricted.
"This is a significant step on our path towards operations," said Glen Chick, Vogtle 3 & 4 construction executive vice president. "[This] will prepare the unit for cold hydro testing and hot functional testing next year both critical tests required ahead of initial fuel load."
It also confirms that the pumps, motors, valves, pipes and other components function as designed, a reminder of how issues like the South Carolina plant leak can disrupt operations when systems falter.
"It follows the Integrated Flush process, which began in August, to push water through system piping and mechanical components that feed into the Unit 3 reactor vessel and reactor coolant loops for the first time," stated a press release. "Significant progress continues ... including the placement of the final reinforced concrete portion of the Unit 4 shield building. The 148-cubic yard placement took eight hours to complete and, once cured, allows for the placement of the first course of double-decker panels. Also, the upper inner casing for the Unit 3 high-pressure turbine has been placed, signifying the completion of the centerline alignment, which will mean minimal vibration and less stress on the rotors during operations, resulting in more efficient power generation."
The turbine rotors, each weighing approximately 200 tons and rotating at 1,800 revolutions per-minute, pass steam through the turbine blades to power the generator.
The placement of the middle containment vessel ring for Unit 4 was completed in early July. This required several cranes to work in tandem as the 51-ft. tall ring weighed 2.4 million lbs. and had dozens of individual steel plates that were fabricated on site.
A key part of the construction progress was made in late July with the order of the first nuclear fuel load for Unit 3, which consists of 157 fuel assemblies with each measuring 14 ft. tall.
On May 7, Unit 3 was energized (permanently powered), which was essential to perform the testing for the unit. Prior to this, the plant equipment had been running on temporary construction power.
"[This] is a major first step in transitioning the project from construction toward system operations," Chick said.
Construction of the north side of the Unit 3 Auxiliary Building (AB) has progressed with both the floor and roof modules being set. Substantial work also occurred on the steel and concrete that forms the remaining walls and the north AB roof at elevation.
Goreway Power Station Overbilling exposed by Ontario Energy Board shows IESO oversight failures, GCG gaming, and $100M in inappropriate payments at the Brampton natural gas plant, penalized with fines and repayments impacting Ontario ratepayers.
Key Points
Goreway exploited IESO GCG flaws, causing about $100M in improper payouts and fines.
✅ OEB probe flagged $89M in ineligible start-up O&M charges
✅ IESO fined Goreway $10M; majority of excess costs recovered
✅ Audit found $200M in overbilling across nine generators
Hydro customers shelled out about $100 million in "inappropriate" payments to a natural gas plant that exploited flaws in how Ontario manages its private electricity generators, according to the Ontario Energy Board.
The company operating the Goreway Power Station in Brampton "gamed" the system for at least three years, according to an investigation by the provincial energy regulator.
The investigation also delivers stinging criticism of the provincial government's Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), slamming it for a lack of oversight. The probe by the Ontario Energy Board's market surveillance panel was completed nearly a year ago, but was only made public in November because it was buried on its website without a news release. CBC News is the first media outlet to report on the investigation.
The excess payments to Goreway Power Station included:
$89 million in ineligible expenses billed as the costs of firing up power production.
$5.6 million paid in three months from a flaw in how IESO calculated top-ups for the company committing to generate power a day in advance.
Of $11.2 million paid to compensate the company for IESO ordering it to start or stop generating power, the investigation concluded "a substantial portion ... was the result of gaming."
Most privately-owned natural gas-fired plants in the province do not generate electricity constantly, but start and stop production in response to fluctuating market demand, even as the energy minister has requested an halt to natural gas generation across the grid. IESO pays them a premium for the costs of firing up production, through what it calls "generation cost guarantee" programs.
But the investigation found IESO did little checking into the details of Goreway Power Station's billings.
Goreway Power Station, located near Highway 407 in Brampton, Ont., is an 875 megawatt natural gas power plant. (Goreway)
"Conservatively, at least $89 million of Goreway's submissions were clearly ineligible by any reasonable measure," concludes the report.
"Goreway routinely submitted what were obviously inappropriate expenses to be reimbursed by the IESO, and ultimately borne by Ontario ratepayers,"
The investigation panel found an "extraordinary pattern" to these billings by Goreway Power Station, suggesting the IESO should have caught on sooner. The company submitted more than $100 million in start-up operating and maintenance costs during the three-year period investigated — more than all other gas-fired generators in the province combined. The company's costs per start-up were more than double the next most expensive power generator.
"Goreway repeatedly exploited defects in the GCG (generation cost guarantee) program, and in doing so received at least $89 million in gamed GCG payments."
Company fined $10M
The investigation covered a three-year period from when Goreway Power Station began generating power in June 2009. Investigators said that delays in releasing documents slowed down their probe, and they only obtained all the records they needed in April 2016.
The investigating panel does not have the power to impose penalties on companies it found broke the rules.
The IESO fined Goreway Power Station $10 million. The company has also repaid IESO "a substantial portion" of the excess payments it received during its first six years of operating, but the exact figure is blacked out in the investigation report that was made public.
The control room from which the provincial government's Independent Electricity System Operator manages Ontario's power supply. The agency is also responsible for managing contracts with private power producers.(IESO)
"Goreway does not agree with many of the draft report's findings and conclusions, including any suggestion that Goreway engaged in gaming or that it deliberately misled the IESO," writes lawyer George Vegh on behalf of the company in a response to the investigation report, dated Aug. 1.
"Goreway has implemented initiatives designed to ensure that compliance is a chief operating principle."
The power station, located near Highway 407 in Brampton, is a joint venture between Toyota Tsusho Corp. and JERA Co. Inc. During the period under scrutiny, the project was run by Toyota Tsusho and Chubu Electric Power Inc., both headquartered in Japan.
Investigators fear 'same situation' exists today
The report blames the provincially-controlled IESO for creating a system with defects that allowed the over-billing.
"Goreway was able to — and repeatedly did — exploit these defects," says the investigation report. It goes on to explain the flaws "have created opportunities for exploitation, to the serious financial disadvantage of Ontario's ratepayers," even as greening Ontario's grid could entail massive costs.
The investigation suggests IESO hasn't made adequate changes to ensure it won't happen again, at a time when an analysis of a dirtier grid is raising concerns.
"Goreway stands as a clear example of how generators are able to exploit the generation costs guarantee regime," says the report.
"The Panel is concerned that the same situation remains in place today."
PC energy critic Todd Smith raised CBC News' report on the Goreway Power Station in Tuesday's question period. (Ontario Legislature)
After CBC News broke the story Tuesday, the provincial government was forced to respond in question period, amid a broader push for new gas plants to boost electricity production.
"Here we have yet another gas plant scandal in Peel region that's costing electricity customers over $100 million," said PC energy critic Todd Smith. He slammed "the incompetence of a government that once again failed to look out for electricity customers."
Economic Development Minister Brad Duguid said: "There is no excuse for any company in this province to ever game the system."
Nine companies overbilled $200M: audit
The IESO found out about the overbilling "some time ago," said Duguid.
"They fully investigated, they've recovered most of the cost, they delivered a $10 million fine — the biggest fine on record."
The program that Goreway exploited became the subject of an audit that the IESO launched in 2011. The agency uncovered $200 million in ineligible billings by nine power producers, wrote the IESO vice president for policy Terry Young in an email to CBC News.
The IESO has recovered up to 85 per cent of those ineligible costs, Young noted.
Reforms to the design of the the program have removed the potential for overpayments and made it more efficient, he said, even as Ontario weighs embracing clean power more broadly. Last year, its total annual costs dropped to $23 million, down from $61 million in 2014.
