A group of Canadian companies who supply everything from manufactured parts to engineering and insurance services to the nuclear industry say federal support for a new Candu reactor is a prudent, long-term national investment.
“I dont think Canadians appreciate the significant role we could play in the world market — or indeed even the magnitude of the market that is developing,” Neil Alexander, president of the Organization of Candu Industries, said in a recent interview.
Alexander was reacting to news that Ottawa has committed another $135 million in 2009-10 to the development of Atomic Energy of Canada LimitedÂ’s (AECL) next-generation reactor.
“I cannot think of any other investment that will do Canadians so much good for so long into the future,” he said.
Ottawa committed $351 million to AECL in the federal budget but has refused to detail how the 2009-10 spending is allocated.
The $135 million is earmarked for development of the Advanced Candu Reactor, or ACR-1000. The next-generation reactor is the key to AECLÂ’s future viability, say independent observers.
But itÂ’s a public investment the Conservative government itself is refusing to confirm, defend or explain.
Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt has declined repeated interview requests. And in the Commons, she responded to a Bloc question about nuclear funding by touting Canada as a world leader in “renewable energy.”
The official reticence has both proponents and opponents of the nuclear power industry wondering exactly what Prime Minister Stephen HarperÂ’s government has in mind for AECL, a Crown corporation that is one of CanadaÂ’s flagship technology firms.
Liberal MP Gerry Regan was incensed that a Natural Resources department briefing he received insisted no breakdown of the AECL funding existed, but a media outlet was able to secure the numbers.
“It’s no wonder that Canadians don’t trust this government when they are not more transparent,” said Regan.
The Conservatives are currently sitting on a report they commissioned on AECL’s future — including examination of whether the Crown corporation should be privatized in whole or in part.
Alexander said his organization, which represents about 120 companies that do Candu-related business with AECL, has made a detailed economic argument to the government for investment in the new reactor. But it has heard nothing in response.
A great deal hangs on the imminent decision by the Ontario government about new reactors for the province. The ACR-1000 and a next-generation reactor from FranceÂ’s Areva are the prime candidates.
Bryne Purchase, a QueenÂ’s University professor who served as OntarioÂ’s deputy minister of energy when the province was making key nuclear power decisions in the past, said the latest federal funding for the ACR 1000 suggests Ottawa is serious about supporting AECL for the long term.
“It could be that they’ve had that critical cabinet meeting where they’ve considered their options and decided that they’re going to have an entry into the global market for advanced nuclear technology,” said purchase.
But nuclear energy cynics, such as Shawn Patrick Stensil of Greenpeace Canada, fear the government is simply boosting AECL enough to win the Ontario bid and then sell off the profitable parts while leaving taxpayers holding the Crowns liabilities.
Whatever the Conservative government is planning, advocates say the public needs a better understanding of whatÂ’s at stake.
Last year the Tories rejected the American takeover of Canadian space technology firm MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd., due to national security and intellectual property concerns.
The Candu suppliers group makes similar sounding arguments about AECL.
Domestic ownership, said Alexander, “is the intellectual property locally, and that then gives us control over what happens to the industry.”
He noted that Canadian firms that earned an international reputation building pumps and reactor simulators for AECL are now selling to reactor builders worldwide.
But Alexander fears Canada is losing its stature as a technology innovator, and that in turn will impact on the manufacturing base.
“We need to recover that ability to be a technology incubator and the nuclear industry is one of the classic examples where we could do that,” said Alexander. “We are already a major player in the field.”
Arc One Electric Speedboat delivers zero-emission performance, quiet operation, and reduced maintenance, leveraging battery propulsion, aerospace engineering, and venture-backed innovation to cut noise pollution, fuel costs, and water contamination in high-performance marine recreation.
Key Points
Arc One Electric Speedboat is a battery-powered, zero-emission craft offering quiet, high-performance marine cruising.
✅ 475 hp, 24 ft hull, about 40 mph top speed
✅ Cuts noise, fumes, and water contamination vs gas boats
✅ Backed by Andreessen Horowitz; ex-SpaceX engineers
A team of former SpaceX rocket engineers have joined the race to build the first commercial electric speedboat.
The Arc Boat company announced it had raised $4.25m (£3m) in seed funding to start work on a 24ft 475-horsepower craft that will cost about $300,000.
The LA-based company, which is backed by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz (an early backer of Facebook and Airbnb), said the first model of the Arc One boat would be available for sale by the end of the year.
Mitch Lee, Arc’s chief executive, said he wanted to build electric boats because of the impact conventional petrol- or diesel-powered boats have on the environment.
“They not only get just two miles to the gallon, they also pump a lot of those fumes into the water,” Lee said. “In addition, there is the huge noise pollution factor [of conventional boats] and that is awful for the marine life. With gas-powered boats it’s not just carbon emissions into the air, it’s also polluting the water and causing noise pollution. Electric boats, like electric ships clearing the air on the B.C. coast, eliminate all that.”
Lee said electric vessels would also reduce the hassle of boat ownership. “I love being out on the water, being on a boat is so much fun, but owning a boat is so awful,” he said. “I have always believed that electric boats make sense. They will be quicker, quieter and way cheaper and easier to operate and maintain, with access options like an electric boat club in Seattle lowering barriers for newcomers.”
While the first models will be very expensive, Lee said the cost was mostly in developing the technology and cheaper versions would be available in the future, mirroring advances in electric aviation seen across the industry. “It is very much the Tesla approach – we are starting up market and using that income to finance research and development and work our way down market,” he said.
Lee said the technology could be applied to larger craft, and even ferries could run on electricity in the future, as projects for battery-electric high-speed ferries begin to scale.
“We started in February with no team, no money and no warehouse,” he said. “By December we are going to be selling the Arc One, and we are hiring aggressively because we want to accelerate the adoption of electric boats across a whole range of craft, including an electric-ready ferry on Kootenay Lake.”
Lee founded the company with fellow mechanical engineer Ryan Cook. Cook, the company’s chief technology officer, was previously the lead mechanical engineer at Elon Musk’s space exploration company SpaceX where he worked on the Falcon 9 rocket, the world’s first orbital class reusable rocket. In parallel, Harbour Air's electric aircraft highlights cross-sector electrification. Apart from Lee, all of Arc’s employees have some experience working at SpaceX.
The Arc boat, which would have a top speed of 40 mph, joins a number of startups rushing to make the first large-scale production of electric-powered speedboats, while a Vancouver seaplane airline demonstrates complementary progress with a prototype electric aircraft. The Monaco Yacht Club this month held a competition for electric boat prototypes to “instigate a new vision and promote all positive approaches to bring yachting into line” with global carbon dioxide emission reduction targets. Sweden’s Candela C-7 hydrofoil boat was crowned the fastest electric vessel.
Nova Scotia Power Rate Increase Settlement faces UARB scrutiny as regulators weigh electricity rates, fuel costs, storm rider provisions, Bill 212 limits, and Muskrat Falls impacts on ratepayers and affordability for residential and industrial customers.
Key Points
A deal proposing 13.8% electricity hikes for 2023-2024, before the UARB, covering fuel costs, a storm rider, and Bill 212.
✅ UARB review may set different rates than the settlement
✅ Fuel cost prepayment and hedging incentives questioned
✅ Storm rider shifts climate risk onto ratepayers
Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston is calling on provincial regulators to reject a settlement agreement between Nova Scotia Power and customer groups that would see electricity rates rise by nearly 14% electricity rate hike over the next two years.
"It is our shared responsibility to protect ratepayers and I can't state strongly enough how concerned I am that the agreement before you does not do that," Houston wrote in a letter to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board late Monday.
Houston urged the three-member panel to "set the agreement aside and reach its own conclusion on the aforementioned application."
"I do not believe, based on what I know, that the proposed agreement is in the best interest of ratepayers," he said.
The letter does not spell out what his Progressive Conservative government would do if the board accepts the settlement reached last week between Nova Scotia Power and lawyers representing residential, small business and large industrial customer classes.
Other groups also endorsed the deal, although Nova Scotia Power's biggest customer — Port Hawkesbury Paper — did not sign on.
'We're protecting the ratepayers' Natural Resources Minister Tory Rushton said the province was not part of the negotiations leading up to the settlement.
"As a government or department we had no intel on those conversations that were taking place," he said Tuesday. "So, we saw the information the same as the public did late last week, and right now we're protecting the ratepayers of Nova Scotia, even though the province cannot order Nova Scotia Power to lower rates under current law. We want to make sure that that voice is still heard at the UARB level."
Rushton said he didn't want to presuppose what the UARB will say.
"But I think the premier's been very loud and clear and I believe I have been, too. The ratepayers are at the top of our mind. We have different tools at our [disposal] and we'll certainly do what we can and need to [do] to protect those ratepayers."
The settlement agreement If approved by regulators, rates would rise by 6.9 per cent in 2023 and 6.9 per cent in 2024 — almost the same amount on the table when hearings before the review board ended in September.
The Houston government later intervened with legislation, known as Bill 212, that capped rates to cover non-fuel costs by 1.8 per cent. It did not cap rates to cover fuel costs or energy efficiency programs.
In a statement announcing the agreement, Nova Scotia Power president Peter Gregg claimed the settlement adhered "to the direction provided by the provincial government through Bill 212."
Consumer advocate Bill Mahody, representing residential customers, told CBC News the proposed 13.8 per cent increase was "a reasonable rate increase given the revenue requirement that was testified to at the hearing."
Settlement 'remarkably' similar to NSP application The premier disagrees, noting that the settlement and rate application that triggered the rate cap are "remarkably consistent."
He objects to the increased amount of fuel costs rolled into rates next year before the annual true up of actual fuel costs, which are automatically passed on to ratepayers.
"If Nova Scotia Power is effectively paid in advance, what motive do they have to hedge and mitigate the adjustment eventually required," Houston asked in his letter.
He also objected to the inclusion of a storm rider in rates to cover extreme weather, which he said pushed the risk of climate change on to ratepayers.
Premier second-guesses Muskrat Falls approval Houston also second-guessed the board for approving Nova Scotia Power's participation in the Muskrat Falls hydro project in Labrador.
"The fact that Nova Scotians have paid over $500 million for this project with minimal benefit, and no one has been held accountable, is wrong," he said. "It was this board of the day that approved the contracts and entered the final project into rates."
Although the Maritime Link was built on time and on budget by an affiliated company, only a fraction of Muskrat Falls hydro has been delivered because of ongoing problems in Newfoundland, including an 18% electricity rate hike deemed unacceptable by the province's consumer advocate.
"I find it remarkable that those contracts did not include different risk sharing mechanisms; they should have had provisions for issues in oversight of project management. Nevertheless, it was approved, and is causing significant harm to ratepayers in the form of increased rates."
Houston notes that because of non-delivery from Muskrat Falls, Nova Scotia Power has been forced to buy much more expensive coal to burn to generate electricity.
Opposition reaction Opposition parties in Nova Scotia reacted to Houston's letter.
NDP Leader Claudia Chender dismissed it as bluster.
"It exposes his Bill 212 as not really helping Nova Scotians in the way that he said it would," she said. "Nothing in the settlement agreement contravenes that bill. But it seems that he's upset that he's been found out. And so here we are with another intervention in an independent regulatory body."
Liberal Leader Zach Churchill said the government should intervene to help ratepayers directly.
"We just think that it makes more sense to do that directly by supporting ratepayers through heating assistance, lump-sum electricity credits, rebate programs and expanding the eligibility for that or to provide funding directly to ratepayers instead of intervening in the energy market in this way," he said.
The premier's office said that no one was available when asked about an interview on Tuesday.
"The letter speaks for itself," the office responded.
Nova Scotia Power issued a statement Tuesday. It did not directly address Houston's claims.
"The settlement agreement is now with the NS Utility and Review Board," the utility said.
"The UARB process is designed to ensure customers are represented with strong advocates and independent oversight. The UARB will determine whether the settlement results in just and reasonable rates and is in the public interest."
India Coal Supply Rationing redirects shipments from high-inventory power plants to stations facing shortages as electricity demand surges, inventories fall, and outages persist; Coal India, NTPC imports, and smaller mines bolster domestic supply.
Key Points
A temporary policy redirecting coal from high-stock plants to shortage-hit plants amid rising demand
✅ Shipments halted 1 week to plants with >14 days coal stock
✅ Smaller mines asked to raise output; NTPC to import 270,000 tons
✅ Outages at Adani and Tata Mundra units pressure domestic supply
India will ration coal supplies to power plants with high inventories to direct more shipments to stations battling shortages, even as shortages ease in some regions, as surging demand outstrips production.
Supplies to plants with more than two weeks’ coal inventory will be halted for a week, a team headed by federal Coal Secretary Alok Kumar decided on Saturday, the Power Ministry said in a statement. The government has also requested smaller mines to raise output to supplement shipments from state miner Coal India Ltd., and is taking steps to get nuclear back on track to diversify the energy mix.
A jump in electricity consumption spurred by a reviving economy and an extended summer, after an earlier steep demand decline in India, is driving demand for coal, which helps produce about 70% of the nation’s electricity. The surge in demand complicates India’s clean-energy transition efforts amid solar supply headwinds that cloud near-term alternatives, and may bolster arguments favoring the country’s dependence on coal to fuel economic growth.
“There’s no doubt India will continue to need coal for stable power for years,” said Rupesh Sankhe, vice president at Elara Capital India Pvt. in Mumbai. “Plants that meet environmental standards and are able to produce power efficiently will see utilization rising, but I doubt we’re going to have many new coal plants.”
Coal stockpiles at the country’s power plants had fallen to 14.7 million tons as of Aug. 24, tumbling 62% from a year earlier, according to the latest data from the Central Electricity Authority. More than 88 gigawatts of generation plants, about half the capacity monitored by the power ministry, had inventories of six days or less as of that date, the data show. Power demand jumped 10.5% in July from a year earlier, even as global electricity use dipped 15% during the pandemic, according to the government. Outages at some large plants that run on imported coal have increased the burden on those that burn domestic supplies, aiding shortfalls.
Adani Power Ltd. had almost 2 gigawatts of capacity in outage at its Mundra plant in Gujarat at the start of the week, while Tata Power Co. Ltd. had shut 80% of its 4-gigawatt plant in the same town for maintenance, power ministry data show.
NTPC Ltd., the largest power generator, will import the 270,000 tons of coal it left out from contracts placed earlier to mitigate the fuel shortage, reflecting higher imported coal volumes this fiscal, the power ministry said in a separate statement.
SCE Wildfire Lawsuits allege utility equipment and power lines sparked deadly Los Angeles blazes; investigations, inverse condemnation, and stricter utility regulations focus on liability, vegetation management, and wildfire safety amid Santa Ana winds.
Key Points
Residents sue SCE, alleging power lines ignited LA wildfires; seeking compensation under inverse condemnation.
✅ Videos cited show sparking lines near alleged ignition points.
✅ SCE denies wrongdoing; probes and inspections ongoing.
✅ Inverse condemnation may apply regardless of negligence.
In the aftermath of devastating wildfires in Los Angeles, residents have initiated legal action, similar to other mega-fire lawsuits underway in California, against Southern California Edison (SCE), alleging that the utility's equipment was responsible for sparking one of the most destructive fires. The fires have resulted in significant loss of life and property, prompting investigations into the causes and accountability of the involved parties.
The Fires and Their Impact
In early January 2025, Los Angeles experienced severe wildfires that ravaged neighborhoods, leading to the loss of at least 29 lives and the destruction of approximately 155 square kilometers of land. Areas such as Pacific Palisades and Altadena were among the hardest hit. The fires were exacerbated by arid conditions and strong Santa Ana winds, which contributed to their rapid spread and intensity.
Allegations Against Southern California Edison
Residents have filed lawsuits against SCE, asserting that the utility's equipment, particularly power lines, ignited the fires. Some plaintiffs have presented videos they claim show sparking power lines in the vicinity of the fire's origin. These legal actions seek to hold SCE accountable for the damages incurred, including property loss, personal injury, and emotional distress.
SCE's Response and Legal Context
Southern California Edison has denied any wrongdoing, stating that it has not detected any anomalies in its equipment that could have led to the fires. The utility has pledged to cooperate fully with investigations to determine the causes of the fires. California's legal framework, particularly the doctrine of "inverse condemnation," allows property owners to seek compensation from utilities for damages caused by public services, even without proof of negligence. This legal principle has been central in previous cases involving utility companies and wildfire damages, and similar allegations have arisen in other jurisdictions, such as an alleged faulty transformer case, highlighting shared risks.
Historical Context and Precedents
This situation is not unprecedented. In 2018, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) faced similar allegations when its equipment was implicated in the Camp Fire, the deadliest wildfire in California's history. PG&E's equipment was found to have ignited the fire, and the company later pleaded guilty in the Camp Fire, leading to extensive litigation and financial repercussions for the company, while its bankruptcy plan won support from wildfire victims during restructuring. The case highlighted the significant risks utilities face regarding wildfire safety and the importance of maintaining infrastructure to prevent such disasters.
Implications for California's Utility Regulations
The current lawsuits against SCE underscore the ongoing challenges California faces in balancing utility operations with wildfire prevention, as regulators face calls for action amid rising electricity bills. The state has implemented stricter regulations and oversight, and lawmakers have moved to crack down on utility spending to mitigate wildfire risks associated with utility infrastructure. Utilities are now required to invest in enhanced safety measures, including equipment inspections, vegetation management, and the implementation of advanced technologies to detect and prevent potential fire hazards. These regulatory changes aim to reduce the incidence of utility-related wildfires and protect communities from future disasters.
The legal actions against Southern California Edison reflect the complex interplay between utility operations, public safety, and environmental stewardship. As investigations continue, the outcomes of these lawsuits may influence future policies and practices concerning utility infrastructure and wildfire prevention in California. The state remains committed to enhancing safety measures to protect its residents and natural resources from the devastating effects of wildfires.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
Alberta Coal Community Transition Fund backs renewables, natural gas, and economic diversification, offering grants, workforce retraining, and community development to municipalities and First Nations as Alberta phases out coal-fired power by 2030.
Key Points
A provincial grant helping coal-impacted communities diversify, retrain workers, and transition to renewables by 2030.
✅ Grants for municipalities and First Nations
✅ Supports diversification and job retraining
✅ Focus on renewables, natural gas, and new sectors
The Coal Community Transition Fund is open to municipalities and First Nations affected as Alberta phases out coal-fired electricity by 2030 under the federal coal plan to focus on renewables and natural gas.
Economic Development Minister Deron Bilous says the government wants to ensure these communities thrive through the transition, aligning with views that fossil-fuel workers support the energy transition across the economy.
“Residents in our communities have concerns about the transition away from coal, even as discussions about phasing out fossil fuels in B.C. unfold nationally,” Rod Shaigec, mayor of Parkland County, said.
“They also have ideas on how we can mitigate the impacts on workers and diversify our economy, including clean energy partnerships to create new employment opportunities for affected workers. We are working to address those concerns and support their ideas. This funding means we can make those ideas a reality in various economic sectors of opportunity.”
The coal-mining town of Hanna, northeast of Calgary, has already received $450,000 through the program to work on economic diversification, exploring options like bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap that could support new industries.
The application deadline for the coal transition fund is the end of November.
A provincial advisory panel is also expected to report back this fall on ways to create new jobs and retrain workers during the coal phase-out.
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
