The Enron Corp. energy trader who devised the notorious "Death Star" scheme to bill California for fictitious electricity pleaded guilty in a San Francisco court to a federal fraud charge and admitted plotting to manipulate the market during the state's energy crisis.
John Forney, 42, of Upper Arlington, Ohio, is the third former Enron executive to admit lawbreaking during the 2000-01 power shortages and price spikes that led to rolling blackouts and multibillion-dollar rate increases. He faces up to five years in prison.
Timothy Belden, Forney's former boss at Enron's West Coast power trading office in Portland, and Jeffrey Richter, another top Enron trader, are awaiting sentencing for fraud. Both talked to federal agents about Forney and identified him as a chief strategist, according to court documents.
"We have now obtained convictions of the top three Enron executives most directly responsible for manipulating the energy markets in California at a time unique in our history, when the lights were going off and the grid was in danger of shutting down,'' said Kevin Ryan, U.S. attorney in San Francisco. "These executives will now be required to help obtain restitution for the same victims they defrauded, namely the citizens of California and the other Western states."
But California has had little success recouping energy overcharges for its consumers, largely because of limits on reimbursement imposed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
State Attorney General Bill Lockyer sued Enron in June for damages allegedly caused by commodities fraud and unfair competition. Forney's plea agreement requires him to cooperate with Lockyer and with federal prosecutors looking into Enron and other companies.
"We are obviously interested in sitting down and having a good heart-to-heart with Mr. Forney to see what he may have to add to our body of evidence,'' said Lockyer spokesman Tom Dresslar.
Forney's attorney, Edwin Prather, said the plea agreement was "an opportunity for John to help right the wrongs that he helped create'' and to help the government in "understanding the bigger problem of misdeeds of the energy industry."
He said Forney had nothing to do with the case against former Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay, indicted last month on fraud charges connected to the Houston-based company's collapse in late 2001.
Forney joined Enron in 1993 as a low-level generation unit manager, then moved into the company's expanding field of energy trading, where he thrived. He was assigned in 1997 to the Portland office, which handled California power trading under the state's ill-fated electricity deregulation law, and became manager of the real-time trading desk in 1999.
That desk, according to federal prosecutors, hatched the colorfully named schemes -- like "Death Star,'' "Get Shorty'' and "Ricochet'' -- that cheated consumers, fooled state overseers and generated profit increases of as much as 1,500 percent in two years.
Forney said recently that he was the author of "Death Star," which was also known within Enron as Forney's Perpetual Loop. Company traders created the appearance of congestion on the California power grid, then collected a premium price from the state for relieving congestion and delivering electricity where it was needed; in fact, that electricity was looped through transmission lines outside the state and never delivered anywhere.
"Enron purported to move electricity in directions that would relieve congestion, when in fact the electricity was scheduled to flow in a circular pattern,'' Forney said in his plea agreement. He said the California Independent System Operator, which managed the grid, was unable to detect the pattern.
Evidence of such manipulation was starkly illustrated in June when audiotapes of conversations between Enron traders in Portland were released during a legal case in Washington state.
"If the line's not congested, then I just look if I can congest it," one trader said during an August 2000 phone call. "If you can congest it, that's a moneymaker no matter what."
In another taped call, in November 2000, two Enron traders chortled about fleecing "Grandma Millie'' and "those poor grandmothers in California."
Forney's plea agreement also acknowledged a role in "Ricochet,'' in which Enron bought price-capped electricity from the California market and then resold it to California at a price above the cap.
In a quietly arranged appearance before U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins in San Francisco, Forney pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiring to commit wire fraud, and the government agreed to drop 10 other charges contained in a grand jury indictment last December.
Prather, Forney's attorney, said the plea agreement does not specify a sentence, but Forney hopes for a recommendation of leniency based on his cooperation.
Columbia River Treaty Negotiations involve Canada-U.S. talks on B.C. dams, flood control, hydropower sharing, and downstream benefits, prioritizing ecosystem health, First Nations rights, and salmon restoration while balancing affordable electricity for northwest consumers.
Key Points
Talks to update flood control, hydropower, and ecosystem terms for fair benefits to B.C. and U.S. communities.
✅ Public consultations across B.C.'s Columbia Basin
✅ First Nations priorities include salmon restoration
✅ U.S. seeks cheaper power; B.C. defends downstream benefits
With talks underway between Canada and the U.S. on the future of the Columbia River Treaty, the B.C. New Democrats have launched public consultations in the region most affected by the high-stakes negotiation.
“We want to ensure Columbia basin communities are consulted, kept informed and have their voices heard,” said provincial cabinet minister Katrine Conroy via a press release announcing meetings this month in Castlegar, Golden, Revelstoke, Nakusp, Nelson and other communities.
As well as having cabinet responsibility for the talks, Conroy’s Kootenay West riding includes several places that were inundated under the terms of the 1964 flood control and power generation treaty.
“We will continue to work closely with First Nations affected by the treaty, to ensure Indigenous interests are reflected in the negotiations,” she added by way of consolation to Indigenous people who’ve been excluded from the negotiating teams on both sides of the border.
#google#
The stakes are also significant for the province as a whole. The basics of the treaty saw B.C. build dams to store water on this side of the border, easing the flood risk in the U.S. and allowing the flow to be evened out through the year. In exchange, B.C. was entitled to a share of the additional hydro power that could be generated in dams on the U.S. side.
B.C.’s sale of those downstream benefits to the U.S has poured almost $1.4 billion into provincial coffers over the past 10 years, albeit at a declining rate these days amid scrutiny from a regulator report on BC Hydro that raised concerns, because of depressed prices for cross-border electricity sales.
Politicians on the U.S. side have long sought to reopen the treaty, believing there was now a case for reducing B.C.’s entitlement.
They did not get across the threshold under President Barack Obama.
Then, last fall his successor Donald Trump served notice of intent, initiating the formal negotiations that commenced with a two day session last week in Washington, D.C. The next round is set for mid-August in B.C.
American objectives in the talks include “continued, careful management of flood risk; ensuring a reliable and economical power supply; and better addressing ecosystem concerns,” with recognition of recent BC Hydro demand declines during the pandemic.
“Economical power supply,” being a diplomatic euphemism for “cheaper electricity for consumers in the northwest states,” achievable by clawing back most of B.C.’s treaty entitlement.
On taking office last summer, the NDP inherited a 14-point statement of principles setting out B.C. hopes for negotiations to “continue the treaty” while “seeking improvements within the existing framework” of the 54-year-old agreement.
The New Democrats have endorsed those principles in a spirit of bipartisanship, even as Manitoba Hydro governance disputes play out elsewhere in Canada.
“Those principles were developed with consultation from throughout the region,” as Conroy advised the legislature this spring. “So I was involved, as well, in the process and knew what the issues were, right as they would come up.”
The New Democrats did chose to put additional emphasis on some concerns.
“There is an increase in discussion with Canada and First Nations on the return of salmon to the river,” she advised the house, recalling how construction of the enormous Grand Coulee Dam on the U.S. side in the 1930s wiped out salmon runs on the upper Columbia River.
“There was no consideration then for how incredibly important salmon was, especially to the First Nations people in our region. We have an advisory table that is made up of Indigenous representation from our region, and also we are discussing with Canada that we need to see if there’s feasibility here.”
As to feasibility, the obstacles to salmon migration in the upper reaches of the Columbia include the 168-metre high Grand Coulee and the 72-metre Chief Joseph dams on the U.S. side, plus the Keenleyside (52 metres), Revelstoke (175 metres) and Mica (240 metres) dams on the Canadian side.
Still, says Conroy “the First Nations from Canada and the tribes from the United States, have been working on scientific and technical documents and research to see if, first of all, the salmon can come up, how they can come up, and what the things are that have to be done to ensure that happens.”
The New Democrats also put more emphasis on preserving the ecosystem, aligning with clean-energy efforts with First Nations that support regional sustainability.
“I know that certainly didn’t happen in 1964, but that is something that’s very much on the minds of people in the Columbia basin,” said Conroy. “If we are going to tweak the treaty, what can we do to make sure the voices of the basin are heard and that things that were under no consideration in the ’60s are now a topic for consideration?”
With those new considerations, there’s still the status quo concern of preserving the downstream benefits as a trade off for the flooding and other impacts on this side of the border.
The B.C. position on that score is the same under the New Democrats as it was under the Liberals, despite a B.C. auditor general report on deferred BC Hydro costs.
“The level of benefits to B.C., which is currently solely in the form of the (electricity) entitlement, does not account for the full range of benefits in the U.S. or the impacts in B.C.,” says the statement of principle.
“All downstream U.S. benefits such as flood risk management, hydropower, ecosystems, water supply (including municipal, industrial and agricultural uses), recreation, navigation and other related benefits should be accounted for and such value created should be shared equitably between the two countries.”
No surprise if the Americans do not see it the same way. But that is a topic for another day.
Alberta wind power surpasses coal as AESO reports record renewable energy feeding the grid, with natural gas conversions, solar growth, energy storage, and decarbonization momentum lowering carbon intensity across Alberta's electricity system.
Key Points
AESO data shows wind surpassing coal in Alberta, driven by coal retirements, gas conversions, and growing renewables.
✅ AESO reports wind output above coal several times this week
✅ Coal units retire or convert to natural gas, boosting renewables
✅ Carbon intensity falls; storage and solar improve grid reliability
Marking a significant shift in Alberta energy history, wind generation trends provided more power to the province's energy grid than coal several times this week.
According to data from the Alberta Energy System Operator (AESO) released this week, wind generation units contributed more energy to the grid than coal at times for several days. On Friday afternoon, wind farms contributed more than 1,700 megawatts of power to the grid, compared to around 1,260 megawatts from coal stations.
"The grid is going through a period of transformative change when we look at the generation fleet, specifically as it relates to the coal assets in the province," Mike Deising, AESO spokesperson, told CTV News in an interview.
The shift in electricity generation comes as more coal plants come offline in Alberta, or transition to cleaner energy through natural gas generation, including the last of TransAlta's units at the Keephills Plant west of Edmonton.
Only three coal generation stations remain online in the province, at the Genesee plant southwest of Edmonton, as the coal phase-out timeline advances. Less available coal power, means renewable energy like wind and solar make up a greater portion of the grid.
EVOLUTION OF THE GRID "Our grid is changing, and it's evolving," Deising said, adding that more units have converted to natural gas and companies are making significant investments into solar and wind energy.
For energy analyst Kevin Birn with IHS Markit, that trend is only going to continue.
"What we've seen for the last 24 to 36 months is a dramatic acceleration in ambition, policy, and projects globally around cleaner forms of energy or lower carbon forms of energy," Birn said.
Birn, who is also chief analyst of Canadian Oil Markets, added that not only has the public appetite for cleaner energy helped fuel the shift, but technological advancements have made renewables like wind and solar more cost-efficient.
"Alberta was traditionally heavily coal-reliant," he said. "(Now) western Canada has quite a diverse energy base."
LESS CARBON-INTENSIVE According to Birn, the shift in energy production marks a significant reduction in carbon emissions as Alberta progresses toward its last coal plant closure milestone.
Ten years ago, IHS Markit estimates that Alberta's grid contributed about 900 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per megawatt-hour of energy generation.
"That (figure is) really representing the dominance and role of coal in that grid," Birn said.
Current estimates show that figure is closer to 600 kilograms of CO2 equivalent.
"That means the power you and I are using is less carbon-intensive," Birn said, adding that figure will continue to fall over the next couple of years.
RENEWABLES HERE TO STAY While many debate whether Alberta's energy is getting clean enough fast enough, Birn believes change is coming.
"It's been a half-decade of incredible price volatility in the oil market which had really dominated this sector and region," the analyst said.
"When I think of the future, I see the power sector building on large-scale renewables, which means decarbonization, and that provides an opportunity for those tech companies looking for clean energy places to land facilities."
Coal and natural gas are considered baseline assets by the AESO, where generation capacity does not shift dramatically, though some utilities report declining coal returns in other markets.
"Wind is a variable resource. It will generate when the wind is blowing, and it obviously won't when the wind is not," Deising said. "Wind and solar can ramp quickly, but they can drop off quite quickly, and we have to be prepared.
"We factor that into our daily planning and assessments," he added. "We follow those trends and know where the renewables are going to show up on the system, how many renewables are going to show up."
Deising says one wind plant in Alberta currently has an energy storage capacity to preserve renewably generated electricity during summer demand records and peak hours as needed. As the technology becomes more affordable, he expects more plants to follow suit.
"As a system operator, our job is to make sure as (the grid) is evolving we can continue to provide reliable power to Albertans at every moment every day," Deising said. "We just have to watch the system more carefully."
Hydroelectric retrofits for unpowered dams leverage turbines to add renewable capacity, bolster grid reliability, and enable low-impact energy storage, supporting U.S. and Canada decarbonization goals with lower costs, minimal habitat disruption, and climate resilience.
Key Points
They add turbines to existing dams to make clean power, stabilize the grid, and offer low-impact storage at lower cost.
✅ Lower capex than new dams; minimal habitat disruption
✅ Adds firming and storage to support wind and solar
✅ New low-head turbines unlock more retrofit sites
As countries race to get their power grids off fossil fuels to fight climate change, there's a big push in the U.S. to upgrade dams built for purposes such as water management or navigation with a feature they never had before — hydroelectric turbines.
And the strategy is being used in parts of Canada, too, with growing interest in hydropower from Canada supplying New York and New England.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration says only three per cent of 90,000 U.S. dams currently generate electricity. A 2012 report from the U.S. Department of Energy found that those dams have 12,000 megawatts (MW) of potential hydroelectric generation capacity. (According to the National Hydropower Association, 1 MW can power 750 to 1,000 homes. That means 12,000 MW should be able to power more than nine million homes.)
As of May 2019, there were projects planned to convert 32 unpowered dams to add 330 MW to the grid over the next several years.
One that was recently completed was the Red Rock Hydroelectric Project, a 60-year-old flood control dam on the Des Moines River in Iowa that was retrofitted in 2014 to generate 36.4 MW at normal reservoir levels, and up to 55 MW at high reservoir levels and flows. It started feeding power to the grid this spring, and is expected to generate enough annually to supply power to 18,000 homes.
It's an approach that advocates say can convert more of the grid from fossil fuels to clean energy, often with a lower cost and environmental impact than building new dams.
Hydroelectric facilities can also be used for energy storage, complementing intermittent clean energy sources such as wind and solar with pumped storage to help maintain a more reliable, resilient grid.
The Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund are two environmental groups that oppose new hydro dams because they can block fish migration, harm water quality, damage surrounding ecosystems and release methane and CO2, and in some regions, Western Canada drought has reduced hydropower output as reservoirs run low. But they say adding turbines to non-powered dams can be part of a shift toward low-impact hydro projects that can support expansion of solar and wind power.
Paul Norris, president of the Ontario Waterpower Association, said there's typically widespread community support for such projects in his province amid ongoing debate over whether Ontario is embracing clean power in its future plans. "Any time that you can better use existing assets, I think that's a good thing."
New turbine technology means water doesn't need to fall from as great a height to generate power, providing opportunities at sites that weren't commercially viable in the past, Norris said, with recent investments such as new turbines in Manitoba showing what is possible.
In Ontario, about 1,000 unpowered dams are owned by various levels of government. "With the appropriate policy framework, many of these assets have the potential to be retrofitted for small hydro," Norris wrote in a letter to Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator this year as part of a discussion on small-scale local energy generation resources.
He told CBC that several such projects are already in operation, such as a 950 kW retrofit of the McLeod Dam at the Moira River in Belleville, Ont., in 2008.
Four hydro stations were going to be added during dam refurbishment on the Trent-Severn Waterway, but they were among 758 renewable energy projects cancelled by Premier Doug Ford's government after his election in 2018, a move examined in an analysis of Ontario's dirtier electricity outlook and its implications.
Patrick Bateman, senior vice-president of Waterpower Canada, said such dam retrofit projects are uncommon in most provinces. "I don't see it being a large part of the future electricity generation capacity."
He said there has been less movement on retrofitting unpowered dams in Canada compared to the U.S., because:
There are a lot more opportunities in Canada to refurbish large, existing hydro-generating stations to boost capacity on a bigger scale.
There's less growth in demand for clean energy, because more of Canada's grid is already non-carbon-emitting (80 per cent) compared to the U.S. (40 per cent).
Even so, Norris thinks Canadians should be looking at all opportunities and options when it comes to transitioning the grid away from fossil fuels, including retrofitting non-powered dams, especially as a recent report highlights Canada's looming power problem over the coming decades.
"If we're going to be serious about addressing the inevitable challenges associated with climate change targets and net zero, it really is an all-of-the-above approach."
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 Nuclear Power Extension keeps Isar 2, Neckarwestheim 2, and Emsland running as Olaf Scholz tackles the energy crisis, soaring gas prices, and EU winter demand, prioritizing grid stability amid the Ukraine war.
Key Points
A temporary policy keeping three German reactors online to enhance grid stability and national energy security.
✅ Extends Isar 2, Neckarwestheim 2, and Emsland operations
✅ Addresses EU energy crisis and soaring gas prices
✅ Prioritizes grid stability while coal phase-out advances
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has ordered the country's three remaining nuclear power stations to keep operating until mid-April, signalling a nuclear U-turn as the energy crisis sparked by Russia's invasion of Ukraine hurts the economy.
Originally Germany planned to phase out all three by the end of this year, continuing its nuclear phaseout policy at the time.
Mr Scholz's order overruled the Greens in his coalition, who wanted two plants kept on standby, to be used if needed.
Nuclear power provides 6% of Germany's electricity.
The decision to phase it out was taken by former chancellor Angela Merkel after Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011.
But gas prices have soared since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February, which disrupted Russia's huge oil and gas exports to the EU, though some officials argue that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue in the short term. In August Russia turned off the gas flowing to Germany via the Nord Stream 1 undersea pipeline.
After relying so heavily on Russian gas Germany is now scrambling to maintain sufficient reserves for the winter. The crisis has also prompted it to restart mothballed coal-fired power stations, with coal generating about a third of its electricity currently, though the plan is to phase out coal in the drive for green energy.
Last year Germany got 55% of its gas from Russia, but in the summer that dropped to 35% and it is declining further.
EU leaders consider how to cap gas prices France sends Germany gas for first time amid crisis Chancellor Scholz's third coalition partner, the liberal Free Democrats (FDP), welcomed his move to keep nuclear power as part of the mix. The three remaining nuclear plants are Isar 2, Neckarwestheim 2 and Emsland, which were ultimately shut down after the extension.
The Social Democrat (SPD) chancellor also called for ministries to present an "ambitious" law to boost energy efficiency and to put into law a phase-out of coal by 2030, aiming for a coal- and nuclear-free economy among major industrial nations.
Last week climate activist Greta Thunberg said it was a "mistake" for Germany to press on with nuclear decommissioning while resorting to coal again, intensifying debate over a nuclear option for climate goals nationwide.
MARVEL microreactor debuts at Idaho National Laboratory as a 100 kW, liquid-metal-cooled, zero-emissions generator powering a nuclear microgrid, integrating wind and solar for firm, clean energy in advanced nuclear applications research.
Key Points
A 100 kW, liquid-metal-cooled INL reactor powering a nuclear microgrid and showcasing zero-emissions clean energy.
✅ 100 kW liquid-metal-cooled microreactor at INL
✅ Powers first nuclear microgrid for applications testing
✅ Integrates with wind and solar for firm clean power
Inside the Transient Reactor Test Facility, a towering, windowless gray block surrounded by barbed wire, researchers are about to embark on a mission to solve one of humanity’s greatest problems with a tiny device.
Next year, they will begin construction on the MARVEL reactor. MARVEL stands for Microreactor Applications Research Validation and EvaLuation. It’s a first-of-a-kind nuclear power generator with a mini-reactor design that is cooled with liquid metal and produces 100 kilowatts of energy. By 2024, researchers expect MARVEL to be the zero-emissions engine of the world’s first nuclear microgrid at Idaho National Laboratory (INL).
“Micro” and “tiny,” of course, are relative. MARVEL stands 15 feet tall, weighs 2,000 pounds, and can fit in a semi-truck trailer. But it's minuscule compared to conventional nuclear power plants, which span acres, produces gigawatts of electricity to power whole states, and can take more than a decade to build.
For INL, where scientists have tested dozens of reactors over the decades across an area three-quarters the size of Rhode Island, it’s a radical reimagining of the technology. This advanced reactor design could help overcome the biggest obstacles to nuclear energy: safety, efficiency, scale, cost, and competition. MARVEL is an experiment to see how all these pieces could fit together in the real world.
“It’s an applications test reactor where we’re going to try to figure out how we extract heat and energy from a nuclear reactor and apply it — and combine it with wind, solar, and other energy sources,” said Yasir Arafat, head of the MARVEL program.
The project, however, comes at a time when nuclear power is getting pulled in wildly different directions, from phase-outs to new strategies like the UK’s green industrial revolution that shapes upcoming reactors.
Germany just shut down its last nuclear reactors. The U.S. just started up its first new reactor in 30 years, underscoring a shift. France, the country with the largest share of nuclear energy on its grid, saw its atomic power output decline to its lowest since 1988 last year. Around the world, there are currently 60 nuclear reactors under construction, with 22 in China alone.
But the world is hungrier than ever for energy. Overall electricity demand is growing: Global electricity needs will increase nearly 70 percent by 2050 compared to today’s consumption, according to the Energy Information Administration. At the same time, the constraints are getting tighter. Most countries worldwide, including the U.S., have committed to net-zero goals by the middle of the century, even as demand rises.
To meet this energy demand without worsening climate change, the U.S. Energy Department’s report on advanced nuclear energy released in March said, “the U.S. will need ~550–770 [gigawatts] of additional clean, firm capacity to reach net-zero; nuclear power is one of the few proven options that could deliver this at scale.”
The U.S. government is now renewing its bets on nuclear power to produce steady electricity without emitting greenhouse gases. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included $6 billion to keep existing nuclear power plants running. In addition, the Inflation Reduction Act, the U.S. government’s largest investment in countering climate change, includes several provisions to benefit atomic power, including tax credits for zero-emissions energy.
“It’s a game changer,” said John Wagner, director of INL.
The tech sector is jumping in, too, as atomic energy heats up across startups and investors. In 2021, venture capital firms poured $3.4 billion into nuclear energy startups. They’re also pouring money into even more far-out ideas, like nuclear fusion power. Public opinion has also started moving. An April Gallup poll found that 55 percent of Americans favour and 44 percent oppose using atomic energy, the highest levels of support in 10 years.
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.
