The thorny issue of whether monopoly power companies should profit from energy efficiency nearly prevented unanimous support for a series of recommendations adopted by the state's global warming task force.
Papermakers objected to changing the way utilities earn their profit to reward energy efficiency. Energy-intensive industries such as NewPage Corp. that are already investing in energy efficiency want to see lower energy costs, not higher rates, paper council President Jeff Landin said.
At issue is a plan that state regulators will develop to allow utilities to continue to profit even as revenue falls, as the state implements aggressive moves to boost the energy efficiency of Wisconsin businesses and homes.
"This industry will do what we can to be environmentally conscious, but we can't do it without seeing savings," Landin said.
After wording in the interim report was changed in a few places, paper company representative Tom Scharff of NewPage agreed to support it and the report was adopted unanimously. The report calls for Wisconsin to explore building wind turbines in the Great Lakes and proposes a dramatic boost in energy efficiency to reverse the state's growing appetite for energy.
Tia Nelson, task force co-chair, called the vote "a very major step forward," given that the task force included representatives of industry, electric utilities and environmental groups. The task force will hold a four-city public comment session, conducted by teleconference, from 4 to 7 p.m. March 19 in Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay and La Crosse.
Through energy efficiency, "we ought to do as much as we can because that will keep our businesses competitive, help reduce customers' bills and avoid building very expensive new power plants over the long term," task force co-chairman and utility president Roy Thilly said.
Thilly and Dan Ebert, chairman of the state Public Service Commission, said the renewable energy opportunity for Wisconsin provided by the Great Lakes could be a competitive advantage for the state. "It's incumbent on every state to maximize its competitive position," Ebert said.
"For the state of Wisconsin, that's in bioenergy, certainly because of our strong agriculture and paper industries. Another competitive advantage that we may very well have is wind from the lakes."
Industrial representatives are concerned what a big infusion of funding for energy efficiency will mean for energy costs in Wisconsin at a time when paper industry states in the Southeast aren't moving to respond to global warming. Papermakers are closing mills and don't need more restrictions on their ability to compete, Landin said.
The Public Service Commission will look for the most cost-effective energy efficiency projects, Ebert said, but providing more funds to cut energy use will be less costly for customers than building a new nuclear plant or coal-fired power plant.
Minnesota Electric Cooperatives are driving grid innovation with smart meters, time-of-use pricing, demand response, and energy storage, including iron-air batteries, to manage peak loads, integrate wind and solar, and cut costs for rural members.
Key Points
Member-owned utilities piloting load management, meters, and storage to integrate wind and solar, cutting peak demand.
✅ Time-of-use pricing pilots lower bills and shift peak load.
✅ Iron-air battery tests add multi-day, low-cost energy storage.
✅ Smart meters enable demand response across rural co-ops.
Minnesota electric cooperatives have quietly emerged as laboratories for clean grid innovation, outpacing investor-owned utilities on smart meter installations, time-based pricing pilots, and experimental battery storage solutions.
“Co-ops have innovation in their DNA,” said David Ranallo, a spokesperson for Great River Energy, a generation and distribution cooperative that supplies power to 28 member utilities — making it one of the state’s largest co-op players.
Minnesota farmers helped pioneer the electric co-op model more than a century ago, similar to modern community-generated green electricity initiatives, pooling resources to build power lines, transformers and other equipment to deliver power to rural parts of the state. Today, 44 member-owned electric co-ops serve about 1.7 million rural and suburban customers and supply almost a quarter of the state’s electricity.
Co-op utilities have by many measures lagged on clean energy. Many still rely on electricity from coal-fired power plants. They’ve used political clout with rural lawmakers to oppose new pollution regulations and climate legislation, and some have tried to levy steep fees on customers who install solar panels.
Where they are emerging as innovators is with new models and technology for managing electric grid loads — from load-shifting water heaters to a giant experimental battery made of iron. The programs are saving customers money by delaying the need for expensive new infrastructure, and also showing ways to unlock more value from cheap but variable wind and solar power.
Unlike investor-owned utilities, “we have no incentive to invest in new generation,” said Darrick Moe, executive director of the Minnesota Rural Electric Association. Curbing peak energy demand has a direct financial benefit for members.
Minnesota electric cooperatives have launched dozens of programs, such as the South Metro solar project, in recent years aimed at reducing energy use and peak loads, in particular. They include:
Cost calculations are the primary driver for electric cooperatives’ recent experimentation, and a lighter regulatory structure and evolving electricity market reforms have allowed them to act more quickly than for-profit utilities.
“Co-ops and [municipal utilities] can act a lot more nimbly compared to investor-owned utilities … which have to go through years of proceedings and discussions about cost-recovery,” said Gabe Chan, a University of Minnesota associate professor who has researched electric co-ops extensively. Often, approval from a local board is all that’s required to launch a venture.
Great River Energy’s programs, which are rebranded and sold through member co-ops, yielded more than 101 million kilowatt-hours of savings last year — enough to power 9,500 homes for a year.
Beyond lowering costs for participants and customers at large, the energy-saving and behavior-changing programs sometimes end up being cited as case studies by larger utilities considering similar offerings. Advocates supporting a proposal by the city of Minneapolis and CenterPoint Energy to allow residents to pay for energy efficiency improvements on their utility bills through distributed energy rebates used several examples from cooperatives.
Despite the pace of innovation on load management, electric cooperatives have been relatively slow to transition from coal-fired power. More than half of Great River Energy’s electricity came from coal last year, and Dairyland Power, another major power wholesaler for Minnesota co-ops, generated 70% of its energy from coal. Meanwhile, Xcel Energy, the state’s largest investor-owned utility, has already reduced coal to about 20% of its energy mix.
The transition to cleaner power for some co-ops has been slowed by long-term contracts with power suppliers that have locked them into dirty power. Others have also been stalled by management or boards that have been resistant to change. John Farrell, director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance’s Energy Democracy program, said generalizing co-ops is difficult.
“We’ve seen some co-ops that have got 75-year contracts for coal, that are invested in coal mines and using their newsletter to deny climate change,” he said. “Then you see a lot of them doing really amazing things like creating energy storage systems … and load balancing [programs], because they are unique and locally managed and can have that freedom to experiment without having to go through a regulatory process.”
Great River Energy, for its part, says it intends to reach 54% renewable generation by 2025, while some communities, like Frisco, Colorado, are targeting 100% clean electricity by specific dates. Its members recently voted to sell North Dakota’s largest coal plant, but the arrangement involves members continuing to buy power from the new owners for another decade.
The cooperative’s path to clean power could become clearer if its experimental iron-air battery project is successful. The project, the first of its kind in the country, is expected to be completed by 2023.
Alberta Renewable Energy Market is accelerating as wind and solar prices fall, corporate PPAs expand, and a deregulated, energy-only system, AESO outlooks, and TIER policy drive investment across the province.
Key Points
An open, energy-only Alberta market where wind and solar growth is driven by corporate PPAs, AESO outlooks, and TIER.
✅ Corporate PPAs lower costs and hedge power price risk
✅ AESO forecasts and TIER policy support renewables
By Chris Varcoe, Calgary Herald
A few things are abundantly clear about the state of renewable energy in Alberta today.
First, the demise of Alberta’s Renewable Electricity Program (REP) under the UCP government isn’t going to see new projects come to a screeching halt.
In fact, new developments are already going ahead.
And industry experts believe private-sector companies that increasingly want to purchase wind or solar power are going to become a driving force behind even more projects in Alberta.
BluEarth Renewables CEO Grant Arnold, who spoke Wednesday at the Canadian Wind Energy Association conference, pointed out the sector is poised to keep building in the province, even with the end of the REP program that helped kick-start projects and triggered low power prices.
“The fundamentals here are, I think, quite fantastic — strong resource, which leads to really competitive wind prices . . . it’s now the cheapest form of new energy in the province,” he told the audience.
“Alberta is in a fundamentally good place to grow the wind power market.”
Unlike other provinces, Alberta has an open, deregulated marketplace, which create opportunities for private-sector investment and renewable power developers as well.
The recent decision by the Kenney government to stick with the energy-only market, instead of shifting to a capacity market, is seen as positive for Alberta's energy future by renewable electricity developers.
There is also increasing interest from corporations to buy wind and solar power from generators — a trend that has taken off in the United States with players such as Google, General Motors and Amazon — and that push is now emerging in Canada.
“It’s been really important in the U.S. for unlocking a lot of renewable energy development,” said Sara Hastings-Simon, founding director of the Business Renewable Centre Canada, which seeks to help corporate buyers source renewable energy directly from project developers.
“You have some companies where . . . it’s what their investors and customers are demanding. I think we will see in Alberta customers who see this as a good way to meet their carbon compliance requirements.
“And the third motivation to do it is you can get the power at a good price.”
Just last month, Perimeter Solar signed an agreement with TC Energy to supply the Calgary-based firm with 74 megawatts from its solar project near Claresholm.
More deals in the industry are being discussed, and it’s expected this shift will drive other projects forward.
There is increasing interest from corporations to buy solar and wind energy directly from generators.
“The single-biggest change has been the price of wind and solar,” Arnold said in an interview.
“Alberta looks really, really bright right now because we have an open market. All other provinces, for regulatory reasons, we can’t have this (deal) . . . between a generator and a corporate buyer of power. So Alberta has a great advantage there.”
These forces are emerging as the renewable energy industry has seen dramatic change in recent years in Alberta, with costs dropping and an array of wind and solar developments moving ahead, even as solar expansion faces challenges in the province.
The former NDP government had an aggressive target to see green energy sources make up 30 per cent of all electricity generation by 2030.
Last week, the Alberta Electric System Operator put out its long-term outlook, with its base-case scenario projecting moderate demand growth for power over the next two decades. However, the expected load growth — expanding by an average of 0.9 per cent annually until 2039 — is only half the rate seen in the past 20 years.
Natural gas will become the main generation source in the province as coal-fired power (now comprising more than one-third of generation) is phased out.
Renewable projects initiated under the former NDP government’s REP program will come online in the near term, while “additional unsubsidized renewable generation is expected to develop through competitive market mechanisms and support from corporate power purchase agreements,” the report states.
AESO forecasts installed generation capacity for renewables will almost double to about 19 per cent by 2030, with wind and solar increasing to 21 per cent by 2039.
Another key policy issue for the sector will likely come within the next few weeks when the provincial government introduces details of its new Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction program (TIER).
The initiative will require large industrial emitters to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a benchmark level, pay into the technology fund, or buy offsets or credits. The carbon price is expected to be around $20 to $30 a tonne, and the system will kick in on Jan. 1, 2020.
Industry players point out the decision to stick with Alberta’s energy-only market along with the details surrounding TIER, and a focus by government on reducing red tape, should all help the sector attract investment.
“It is pretty clear there is a path forward for renewables here in the province,” said Evan Wilson, regional director with the Canadian Wind Energy Association.
All of these factors are propelling the wind and solar sector forward in the province, at the same time the oil and gas sector faces challenges to grow.
But it doesn’t have to be an either/or choice for the province moving forward. We’re going to need many forms of energy in the coming decades, and Alberta is an energy powerhouse, with potential to develop more wind and solar, as well as oil and natural gas resources.
“What we see sometimes is the politics and discussion around renewables or oil becomes a deliberate attempt to polarize people,” Arnold added.
“What we are trying to show, in working in Alberta on renewable projects, is it doesn’t have to be polarizing. There are a lot of solutions.
“The combination of solutions is part of what we need to talk about.”
U.S. Power Grid D+ Rating underscores aging infrastructure, rising outages, cyber threats, EMP and solar flare risks, strained transmission lines, vulnerable transformers, and slow permitting, amplifying reliability concerns and resilience needs across national energy systems.
Key Points
ASCE's D+ grade flags aging infrastructure, rising outages, and cyber, EMP, and weather risks needing investment.
✅ Major outages rising; weather remains top disruption driver.
✅ Cybersecurity gaps via smart grid, EV charging, SCADA.
The U.S. power grid just received its “grade card” from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and it barely passed.
The overall rating of our antiquated electrical system was a D+. Major power outages in the United States, including widespread blackouts, have grown from 76 in 2007 to 307 in 2011, according to the latest available statistics. The major outage figures do not take into account all of the smaller outages which routinely occur due to seasonal storms.
The American Society of Civil Engineers power grid grade card rating means the energy infrastructure is in “poor to fair condition and mostly below standard, with many elements approaching the end of their service life.” It further means a “large portion of the system exhibits significant deterioration” with a “strong risk of failure.”
Such a designation is not reassuring and validates those who purchased solar generators over the past several years.
#google#
The vulnerable state of the power grid gets very little play by mainstream media outlets. Concerns about a solar flare or an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack instantly sending us back to an 1800s existence are legitimate, but it may not take such an extreme act to render the power grid a useless tangle of wires. The majority of the United States’ infrastructure and public systems evaluated by the ASCE earned a “D” rating. A “C” ranking (public parks, rail and bridges) was the highest grade earned. It would take a total of $3.6 trillion in investments by 2020 to fix everything, the report card stated. To put that number in perspective, the federal government’s budget for all of 2012 was slightly more, $3.7 trillion.
“America relies on an aging electrical grid and pipeline distribution systems, some of which originated in the 1880s,” the report read. “Investment in power transmission has increased since 2005, but ongoing permitting issues, weather events, including summer blackouts that strain local systems, and limited maintenance have contributed to an increasing number of failures and power interruptions. While demand for electricity has remained level, the availability of energy in the form of electricity, natural gas, and oil will become a greater challenge after 2020 as the population increases. Although about 17,000 miles of additional high-voltage transmission lines and significant oil and gas pipelines are planned over the next five years, permitting and siting issues threaten their completion. The electric grid in the United States consists of a system of interconnected power generation, transmission facilities, and distribution facilities.”
Harness the power of the sun when the power goes out…
There are approximately 400,000 miles of electrical transmission lines throughout the United States, and thousands of power generating plants dot the landscape. The ASCE report card also stated that new gas-fired and renewable generation issues increase the need to add new transmission lines. Antiquated power grid equipment has reportedly prompted even more “intermittent” power outages in recent years.
The American Society of Civil Engineers accurately notes that the power grid is more vulnerable to cyber attacks than ever before, including Russian intrusions documented in recent years, and it cites the aging electrical system as the primary culprit. Although the decades-old transformers and other equipment necessary to keep power flowing around America are a major factor in the enhanced vulnerability of the power grid, moving towards a “smart grid” system is not the answer. As previously reported by Off The Grid News, smart grid systems and even electric car charging stations make the power grid more accessible to cyber hackers. During the Hack in the Box Conference in Amsterdam, HP ArcSight Product Manager Ofer Sheaf stated that electric car charging stations are in essence a computer on the street. The roadway fueling stations are linked to the power grid electrical system. If cyber hackers garner access to the power grid via the charging stations, they could stop the flow of power to a specific area or alter energy distribution levels and overload the system.
While a relatively small number of electric car charging stations exist in America now, that soon will change. Ongoing efforts by both federal and state governments to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels have resulted in grants and privately funded vehicle charging station projects. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in April announced plans to build 360 such electrical stations in his state. A total of 3,000 car charging stations are in the works statewide and are slated for completion over the next five years.
SHIELD ActWeather-related events were the primary cause of power outages from 2007 to 2012, according to the infrastructure report card. Power grid reliability issues are emerging as the greatest threat to the electrical system, with rising attacks on substations compounding the risks. The ASCE grade card also notes that retiring and rotating in “new energy sources” is a “complex” process. Like most items we routinely purchase in our daily lives, many of the components needed to make the power grid functional are not manufactured in the United States.
The SHIELD Act is the first real piece of federal legislation in years drafted to address power grid vulnerabilities. While the single bill will not fix all of the electrical system issues, it is a big step in the right direction – if it ever makes it out of committee. Replacing aging transformers, encasing them in a high-tech version of a Faraday cage, and stockpiling extra units so instant repairs are possible would help preserve one of the nation’s most critical and life-saving pieces of infrastructure after a weather-related incident or man-made disaster.
“Geomagnetic storm environments can develop instantaneously over large geographic footprints,” solar geomagnetic researcher John Kappenman said about the fragile state of the power grid. He was quoted in an Oak Ridge National Laboratory report. “They have the ability to essentially blanket the continent with an intense threat environment and … produce significant collateral damage to critical infrastructures. In contrast to well-conceived design standards that have been successfully applied for more conventional threats, no comprehensive design criteria have ever been considered to check the impact of the geomagnetic storm environments. The design actions that have occurred over many decades have greatly escalated the dangers posed by these storm threats for this critical infrastructure.”
The power grid has morphed in size tenfold during the past 50 years. While solar flares, cyber attacks, and an EMP are perhaps the most extensive and frightening threats to the electrical system, the infrastructure could just as easily fail in large portions due to weather-related events exacerbated by climate change across regions. The power grid is basically a ticking time bomb which will spawn civil unrest, lack of food, clean water, and a multitude of fires if it does go down.
Duke Energy Carolinas Solar RFP draws 3.9 GW of utility-scale bids, oversubscribed in DEP and DEC, below avoided cost rates, minimal battery storage, strict PPA terms, and interconnection challenges across North and South Carolina.
Key Points
Utility-scale solar procurement in DEC and DEP, evaluated against avoided cost, with few storage bids and PPA terms.
✅ 3.9 GW bids for 680 MW; DEP most oversubscribed
✅ Most projects 7-80 MWac; few include battery storage
✅ Bids must price below 20-year avoided cost estimate
Last week the independent administrator for Duke’s 680 MW solar solicitation revealed data about the projects which have bid in response to the offer, showing a massive amount of interest in the opportunity.
Overall, 18 individuals submitted bids for projects in Duke Energy Carolinas (DEC) territory and 10 in Duke Energy Progress (DEP), with a total of more than 3.9 GW of proposals – more nearly 6x the available volume. DEP was relatively more over-subscribed, with 1.2 GWac of projects vying for only 80 MW of available capacity.
This is despite a requirement that such projects come in below the estimate of Duke’s avoided cost for the next 20 years, and amid changes in solar compensation that could affect project economics. Individual projects varied in capacity from 7-80 MWac, with most coming within the upper portion of that range.
These bids will be evaluated in the spring of 2019, and as Duke Energy Renewables continues to expand its portfolio, Duke Energy Communications Manager Randy Wheeless says he expects the plants to come online in a year or two.
Lack of storage
Despite recent trends in affordable batteries, of the 78 bids that came in only four included integrated battery storage. Tyler Norris, Cypress Creek Renewables’ market lead for North Carolina, says that this reflects that the methodology used is not properly valuing storage.
“The lack of storage in these bids is a missed opportunity for the state, and it reflects a poorly designed avoided cost rate structure that improperly values storage resources, commercially unreasonable PPA provisions, and unfavorable interconnection treatment toward independent storage,” Norris told pv magazine.
“We’re hopeful that these issues will be addressed in the second RFP tranche and in the current regulatory proceedings on avoided cost and state interconnection standards and grid upgrades across the region.”
Limited volume for North Carolina?
Another curious feature of the bids is that nearly the same volume of solar has been proposed for South Carolina as North Carolina – despite this solicitation being in response to a North Carolina law and ongoing legal disputes such as a church solar case that challenged the state’s monopoly model.
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.
Germany Coal Phase-Out 2038 advances the energy transition, curbing lignite emissions while scaling renewable energy, carbon pricing, and hydrogen storage amid a nuclear phase-out and regional just-transition funding for miners and communities.
Key Points
Germany's plan to end coal by 2038, fund regional transition, and scale renewable energy while exiting nuclear.
✅ Closes last coal plant by 2038; reviews may accelerate.
✅ 40b euros aid for lignite regions and workforce.
German lawmakers have finalized the country's long-awaited phase-out of coal as an energy source, backing a plan that environmental groups say isn't ambitious enough and free marketeers criticize as a waste of taxpayers' money.
Bills approved by both houses of parliament Friday envision shutting down the last coal-fired power plant by 2038 and spending some 40 billion euros ($45 billion) to help affected regions cope with the transition, which has been complicated by grid expansion woes in recent years.
The plan is part of Germany's `energy transition' - an effort to wean Europe's biggest economy off planet-warming fossil fuels and generate all of the country's considerable energy needs from renewable sources. Achieving that goal is made harder than in comparable countries such as France and Britain because of Germany's existing commitment to also phase out nuclear power entirely by the end of 2022.
"The days of coal are numbered in Germany," Environment Minister Svenja Schulze said. "Germany is the first industrialized country that leaves behind both nuclear energy and coal."
Greenpeace and other environmental groups have staged vocal protests against the plan, including by dropping a banner down the front of the Reichstag building Friday. They argue that the government's road map won't reduce Germany's greenhouse gas emissions fast enough to meet the targets set out in the Paris climate accord.
"Germany, the country that burns the greatest amount of lignite coal worldwide, will burden the next generation with 18 more years of carbon dioxide," Greenpeace Germany's executive director Martin Kaiser told The Associated Press.
Kaiser, who was part of a government-appointed expert commission, accused Chancellor Angela Merkel of making a "historic mistake," saying an end date for coal of 2030 would have sent a strong signal for European and global climate policy. Merkel has said she wants Europe to be the first continent to end its greenhouse gas emissions, by 2050, even as some in Berlin debate a possible nuclear U-turn to reach that goal faster.
Germany closed its last black coal mine in 2018, but it continues to import the fuel and extract its own reserves of lignite, a brownish coal that is abundant in the west and east of the country, and generates about a third of its electricity from coal in recent years. Officials warn that the loss of mining jobs could hurt those economically fragile regions, though efforts are already under way to turn the vast lignite mines into nature reserves and lakeside resorts.
Schulze, the environment minister, said there would be regular government reviews to examine whether the end date for coal can be brought forward, even as Berlin temporarily extended nuclear operations during the energy crisis. She noted that by the end of 2022, eight of the country's most polluting coal-fired plants will have already been closed.
Environmentalists have also criticized the large sums being offered to coal companies to shut down their plants, a complaint shared by libertarians such as Germany's opposition Free Democratic Party.
Katja Suding, a leading FDP lawmaker, said the government should have opted to expand existing emissions trading systems that put a price on carbon, thereby encouraging operators to shut down unprofitable coal plants.
Katja Suding, a leading FDP lawmaker, said the government should have opted to expand existing emissions trading systems, rather than banking on a nuclear option, that put a price on carbon, thereby encouraging operators to shut down unprofitable coal plants.
"You just have to make it so expensive that it's not profitable anymore to turn coal into electricity," she said.
This week, utility companies in Spain shut down seven of the country's 15 coal-fired power plants, saying they couldn't be operated at profit without government subsidies.
But the head of Germany's main miners' union, Michael Vassiliadis, welcomed the decision, calling it a "historic milestone." He urged the government to focus next on an expansion of renewable energy generation and the use of hydrogen as a clean alternative for storing and transporting energy in the future, amid arguments that nuclear won't fix the gas crunch in the near term.
