JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd. "JinkoSolar" or the "Company" NYSE: JKS, a fast-growing, vertically integrated solar power product manufacturer based in China, recently announced that the 18 MW project developed by China Guangdong Nuclear Solar Energy Development Co., Ltd.CGN-SEDC is now connected to the grid. JinkoSolar provided all the modules for this project in Dunhuang, Gansu Province in west China.
Located in the solar base of China Guangdong Nuclear Power Company in Dunhuang, the solar power plant covers an area of 400,000 square meters and JinkoSolar provided all 76,000 modules for the installation.
With an annual average sunshine time of 3,362 hours, the city of Dunhuang is recognized by experts as a world-class solar-rich region. At the same time, convenient power transmission in the region has provided a guarantee for the rapid growth of photovoltaic grid connection systems. Solar power projects currently completed or under construction in Gansu exceed 100MW, about one-eighth of China's total solar capacity of 768MW. Now providing more than 15 percent of Gansu's total capacity, JinkoSolar has effectively secured a place as one of the most significant solar power manufacturers in this vital region. The success of this project will undoubtedly spur the development of PV projects as well as the solar industry in western China.
"Solar power has become one of the most efficient energy solutions. I am very pleased to see the role our products have played in this process," stated JinkoSolar chairman, David Li. "We are witnessing the tremendous support for the photovoltaic industry from the government, developers and investors in China. It is our sincere hope that we continue to strengthen and establish our long-term relationship with CGN-SEDC and other players in the field. JinkoSolar will continue to provide our customers with high-quality PV modules, while ensuring a long-term and stable return on investment for solar power plant investors."
Wylfa Nuclear Project Cancellation reflects Hitachi's withdrawal, pulling £16bn from North Wales, risking jobs, reshaping UK nuclear power plans as renewables grow and Chinese involvement rises amid shifting energy market policies.
Key Points
An indefinite halt to Hitachi's Wylfa Newydd nuclear plant, removing about £16bn investment and jobs from North Wales.
✅ Hitachi withdraws funding amid changing energy market costs
✅ Puts 400 local roles and up to 10,000 construction jobs at risk
✅ UK shifts toward renewables as nuclear project support stalls
Chris Ruane said Japanese firm Hitachi’s announcement this morning about the Wylfa project would take £16 billion of investment out of the region.
He said it was the latest in a list of energy projects which had been scrapped as he responded to a statement from business secretary Greg Clark.
Mr Ruane, the Labour member for the Vale of Clywd, said: “In his statement he said the Government are relying now more on renewables, can I put the North Wales picture to him; 1,500 wind turbines were planned off the coast of North Wales. They were removed, those plans were cancelled by the private sector.
“The tidal lagoons for Wales were key to the development of the Welsh economy – the Government itself pulled the support for the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. That had a knock-on effect for the huge lagoon planned off the coast of North Wales.
“And now today we hear of the cancellation of a £16 billion investment in the North Wales economy. This will devastate the North Wales economy. The people of North Wales need to know that the Prime Minister is batting for them and batting for the UK.”
Mr Clark blamed the changing landscape of the energy market for today’s announcement, and said Wales has been a “substantial and proud leader” in renewable energy during the UK’s green industrial revolution over recent years.
But another Labour MP from North Wales, Albert Owen, of Ynys Mon, said the Wylfa plant’s cancellation in his constituency is putting 400 jobs at risk, as well as the “potential of 8-10,000 construction jobs”, as well as hundreds of operational jobs and 33 apprenticeships.
He asked Mr Clark: “Can I say straightly can we work together to keep this project alive, to ensure that we create the momentum so it can be ready for a future developer or this developer with the right mechanism?”
The minister replied that he and his officials would “work together in a completely open-book way on the options” to try and salvage the project.
But in the Lords, Labour former security minister Lord West of Spithead said the UK’s nuclear industry was in crisis, noting that Europe is losing nuclear power as well.
“In the 1950s our nation led the world in nuclear power generation and decisions by successive governments, of all hues, have got us in the position today where we cannot even construct a large civil nuclear reaction,” he told peers at question time.
Lord West asked: “Are we content that now the only player seems to be Chinese and that by 2035… we are happy for the Chinese to control one third of the energy supply of our nation?”
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy minister Lord Henley said the Government had hoped for a better announcement from Hitachi but that was not the case.
He said costs in the nuclear sector were rising, amid setbacks at Hinkley Point C, while costs for many renewables were coming down and this was one of the reasons for the problem.
Tory former energy secretary Lord Howell of Guildford said the Chinese were in “pole position” for the rebuilding and replacement “of our nuclear fleet” and this would have a major impact on UK energy policy and plans to meet net zero targets in the 2030s.
Plaid Cymru’s Lord Wigley warned that putting the Wylfa Newydd on indefinite hold would cause economic planning blight in north-west Wales and urged the Government to raise the level of support allocated to the region.
Lord Henley acknowledged the announcement was not welcome but added: “We remain committed to nuclear power. We will look to see what we can do. We still have a great deal of expertise in this country and we can work on that.”
NB Power copper thefts highlight risks at high-voltage substations, with vandalism, fatalities, infrastructure damage, ratepayer costs, and law enforcement alerts tied to metal prices, stolen electricity, and safety concerns across New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Key Points
Substation metal thefts causing fatalities, outages, safety risks, and higher costs that impact NB ratepayers.
✅ Spike aligns with copper price near $3 per pound
✅ Fatal break-ins at high-voltage facilities in Bathurst
✅ Repairs, delays, and safety risks for crews, customers
New Brunswick's power utility is urging people to stay away from its substations, saying the valuable copper they contain is proving hard to resist for thieves.
NB Power has seen almost as many incidents of theft and vandalism to its property in April and May of this year, than in all of last year.
In the 2018-2019 fiscal year, the utility recorded 16 cases of theft and/or vandalism.
In April and May, there have already been 13 cases.
One of those was a fatal incident in Bathurst. On April 13, a 41-year-old man was found unresponsive and later died, after breaking into a substation. It was the second fatality linked to a break-in at an NB Power facility in 10 years.
The investigation is still ongoing, but NB Power believes the man was trying to steal copper.
The power utility has been ramping up its efforts -- finding alternate ways to secure its properties, and educate the public -- on the dangers of copper theft, as utilities work to adapt to climate change that can exacerbate severe weather.
“We really, really, really want to stress that if you’re hitting the wrong wire, cutting the wrong wire, breaking in to or cutting fences, a lot of very bad things can happen,” said NB Power spokesperson Marc Belliveau.
In the 2017-2018 fiscal year, there were 24 recorded cases of theft and/or vandalism.
It also comes at a financial cost for NB Power, and ratepayers -- on average, $330,000 a year. About two-thirds of that is copper. The rest is vehicle break-ins or stolen electricity.
“We’ve done analysis,” Belliveau said. “Often the number of break-ins correspond with the price spiking in copper. So, right now, copper’s about $3 a pound. If it was half of that, there might be half as many incidents.”
New Brunswick Public Safety Minister Carl Urquhart says he knows the utility and police are working to dissuade people from the dangers of the theft, and notes that debates around Site C dam stability issues reflect broader infrastructure safety concerns.
“We all know of incident after incident of major injuries and death caused by, simply by, copper,” he said.
Last November, a Dawson Settlement substation was targeted during a major, storm-related power outage in the province.
It meant NB Power had to divert crews to fix and secure the substation, delaying restoration times for some residents and underscoring efforts to improve local reliability across the grid.
Belliveau says that’s “most frustrating.”
“We’re really trying to take a more proactive approach. And certainly, we encourage people that if you know somebody who’s thinking of doing something like that, to really try and talk them out of it because it’s unbelievably dangerous to break in to a substation,” he said.
Nova Scotia Power, connected through the Maritime Link, was not able to provide details on thefts at their substations, but spokesman David Rodenhiser said "the value of the stolen copper is minor in comparison to the risk that’s created when thieves break into our high-voltage electrical substations."
It's not just risky for the people breaking in, and public opposition to projects like Site C underscores broader community safety concerns.
"It also puts the safety of the workers who maintain our substations at risk, because when thieves steal copper, the protective safety devices in the substations don’t work properly," Rodenhiser said.
Additionally, in Nova Scotia, projects like the Maritime Link have advanced regional transmission, and Nova Scotia Power’s copper components have identifying markers, which make that copper difficult to fence. Anyone who buys or sells stolen propery is at risk of criminal charges.
Australian Electric Vehicle Sales tripled in 2019 amid expanding charging infrastructure and more models, but market share remains low, constrained by limited government policy, weak incentives, and absent emissions standards despite growing ultra-fast chargers.
Key Points
EV units sold in Australia; in 2019 they tripled to 6,718, but market share was just 0.6%.
✅ Sales rose from 2,216 (2018) to 6,718 (2019); ~80% were BEVs.
✅ Public charging sites reached 2,307; fast chargers up 40% year-on-year.
✅ Policy gaps and absent standards limit model supply and EV uptake.
Sales of electric vehicles in Australia tripled in 2019 despite a lack of government support, according to the industry’s peak body.
The country’s network of EV charging stations was also growing, the Electric Vehicle Council’s annual report found, including a rise in the number of faster charging stations that let drivers recharge a car in about 15 minutes.
But the report, released on Wednesday, found the market share for electric vehicles was still only 0.6% of new vehicle sales – well behind the 2.5% to 5% in other developed countries.
The chief executive of the council, Behyad Jafari, said the rise in sales was down to more models becoming available. There are now 28 electric models on sale, with eight priced below $65,000.
Six more were due to arrive before the end of 2021, including two priced below $50,000, the council’s report said.
“We have repeatedly heard from car companies that they were planning to bring vehicles here, but Australia doesn’t have that policy support.”
The Morrison government promised a national electric vehicle strategy would be finalised by the middle of this year, but the policy has been delayed. The prime minister, Scott Morrison, last year accused Labor of wanting to “end the weekend” and force people out of four-wheel drives after the opposition set a target of 50% of new car sales being electric by 2030.
Jafari cited the Kia e-Niro – an award-winning electric SUV that was being prepared for an Australian launch, but is now reportedly on hold because the manufacturer favoured shipping to countries with emissions standards.
The council’s members include BMW, Nissan, Hyundai and Harley Davidson, as well as energy, technology and charging infrastructure companies.
Sales of electric vehicles – which include plug-in hybrids – went from 2,216 in 2018 to 6,718 in 2019, the report said. Jafari said about 80% of those sales were all-electric vehicles.
There have been 3,226 electric vehicles sold in 2020, the report said, despite an overall drop of 20% in vehicle sales due to the Covid-19 pandemic, while U.S. EV sales have surged into 2024.
Jafari said: “Our report is showing that Australian consumers want these cars.
“There is no controversy that the future of the industry is electric, but at the moment the industry is looking at different markets. We want policies that show [Australia] is going on this journey.”
Government agency data has forecast that half the new cars sold will be electric by 2035, underscoring that the age of electric cars is arriving even if there is no policy to support their uptake.
Manufacturers currently selling electric cars in Australia are Nissan, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, Tesla, Volvo, Porsche, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar and Renault, the report said.
Jafari said most G20 countries had emissions standards in place for vehicles sold and incentives in place to support electric vehicles, such as rebates or exemptions from charges. This hadn’t happened in Australia, he said.
The report said: “Globally, carmakers are rolling out more electric vehicle models as the electric car market expands, but so far production cannot keep up with demand. This means that without policy signals, Australians will continue to be denied access to the full global range of electric vehicles.”
On Tuesday, one Australian charging provider, Evie Networks, opened an ultra-fast station at a rest stop at Campbell Town in Tasmania – between Launceston and Hobart.
The company said the station would connect EV owners in the state’s north and south and the two 350kW chargers could recharge a vehicle in 15 minutes, highlighting whether grids have the power to charge EVs at scale. Two more sites were planned for Tasmania, the company said.
A Tasmanian government grant to support electric vehicle charging had helped finance the site. Evie was also supported with a $15m grant from the federal government’s Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
According to the council report, Australia now has 2,307 public charging stations, including 357 fast chargers – a rise of 40% in the past year.
A survey of 2,900 people in New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria and South Australia, carried out by NRMA, RACV and RAA on behalf of the council, found the main barriers to buying an electric vehicle were concerns over access to charging points, higher prices and uncertainty over driving range.
Consumers favoured electric vehicles because of their environmental footprint, lower maintenance costs and vehicle performance.
The report said the average battery range of electric vehicles available in Australia was 400km, but almost 80% of people thought the average was less.
According to the survey, 56% of Australians would consider an electric car when they next bought a vehicle, and in the UK, EV inquiries soared during a fuel supply crisis.
“We are far behind, but it is surmountable,” Jafari said.
The council report also rated state and territories on the policies that supported its industry and found the ACT was leading, followed by NSW and Queensland.
A review of commercial electric vehicle use found public electric bus trials were planned or under way in Queensland, NSW, WA, Victoria and ACT. There are now more than 400,000 electric buses in use around the globe.
Electricity used to be boring. Public utilities that provided power to homes and businesses were regulated monopolies and, by law, guaranteed a fixed rate-of-return on their generation, transmission, and distribution assets. Prices per kilowatt-hour were set by utility commissions after lengthy testimony from power companies, wanting higher rates, and consumer groups, wanting lower rates.
About 25 years ago, the electricity landscape started to change as economists and others argued that competition could lead to lower prices and stronger grid reliability. Opponents of competition argued that consumers weren’t knowledgeable enough about power markets to make intelligent choices in a competitive pricing environment. Nonetheless, today 20 states have total or partial competition for electricity, allowing independent power generators to compete in wholesale markets and retail electric providers (REPs) to compete for end-use customers, a dynamic echoed by the Alberta electricity market across North America. (Transmission, in all states, remains a regulated natural monopoly).
A recent study by the non-partisan Pacific Research Institute (PRI) provides compelling evidence that competition in power markets has been a boon for consumers. Using data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), PRI’s researchers found that wholesale electricity prices in competitive markets have been generally declining or flat, prompting discussions of free electricity business models, over the last five years. For example, compared to 2015, wholesale power prices in New England have dropped more than 44 percent, those in most Mid-Atlantic States have fallen nearly 42 percent, and in New York City they’ve declined by nearly 45 percent. Wholesale power costs have also declined in monopoly states, but at a considerably slower rate.
As for end-users, states that have competitive retail electricity markets have seen smaller price increases, as consumers can shop for electricity in Texas more cheaply than in monopoly states. Again, using EIA data, PRI found that in 14 competitive jurisdictions, retail prices essentially remained flat between 2008 and 2020. By contrast, retail prices jumped an average of 21 percent in monopoly states. The ten states with the largest retail price increases were all monopoly-based frameworks. A 2017 report from the Retail Energy Supply Association found customers in states that still have monopoly utilities saw their average energy prices increase nearly 19 percent from 2008 to 2017 while prices fell 7 percent in competitive markets over the same period.
The PRI study also observed that competition has improved grid reliability, the recent power disruptions in California and Texas, alongside disruptions in coal and nuclear sectors across the U.S., notwithstanding. Looking at two common measures of grid resiliency, PRI’s analysis found that power interruptions were 10.4 percent lower in competitive states while the duration of outages was 6.5 percent lower.
Citing data from the EIA between 2008 and 2018, PRI reports that greenhouse gas emissions in competitive states declined on average 12.1 percent compared to 7.3 percent in monopoly states. This result is not surprising, and debates over whether Israeli power supply competition can bring cheaper electricity mirror these dynamics. In a competitive wholesale market, independent power producers have an incentive to seek out lower-cost options, including subsidized renewables like wind and solar. By contrast, generators in monopoly markets have no such incentive as they can pass on higher costs to end-users. Perhaps the most telling case is in the monopoly state of Georgia where the cost to build nuclear Plant Vogtle has doubled from its original estimate of $14 billion 12 years ago. Overruns are estimated to cost Georgia ratepayers an average of $854, and there is no definite date for this facility to come on line. This type of mismanagement doesn’t occur in competitive markets.
Unfortunately, some critics are attempting to halt the momentum for electricity competition and have pointed to last winter’s “deep freeze” in Texas that left several million customers without power for up to a week. But this example is misplaced. Power outages in February were the result of unprecedented and severe weather conditions affecting electricity generation and fuel supply, and numerous proposals to improve Texas grid reliability have focused on weatherization and fuel resilience; the state simply did not have enough access to natural gas and wind generation to meet demand. Competitive power markets were not a factor.
The benefits of wholesale and retail competition in power markets are incontrovertible. Evidence shows that households and businesses in competitive states are paying less for electricity while grid reliability has improved. The facts also suggest that wholesale and retail competition can lead to faster reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In short, competition in power markets is good for consumers and good for the environment.
Bernard L. Weinstein is emeritus professor of applied economics at the University of North Texas, former associate director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University, and a fellow of Goodenough College, London. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.
Air-gen Protein Nanowire Generator delivers clean energy by harvesting ambient humidity via Geobacter-derived conductive nanowires, generating continuous hydrovoltaic electricity through moisture gradients, electrodes, and proton diffusion for sustainable, low-waste power in diverse climates.
Key Points
A device using Geobacter protein nanowires to harvest humidity, producing continuous DC power via proton diffusion.
✅ 7 micrometer film between electrodes adsorbs water vapor.
✅ Output: ~0.5 V, 17 uA/cm2; stack units to scale power.
✅ Geobacter optimized via engineered E. coli for mass nanowires.
They found it buried in the muddy shores of the Potomac River more than three decades ago: a strange "sediment organism" that could do things nobody had ever seen before in bacteria.
This unusual microbe, belonging to the Geobacter genus, was first noted for its ability to produce magnetite in the absence of oxygen, but with time scientists found it could make other things too, like bacterial nanowires that conduct electricity.
For years, researchers have been trying to figure out ways to usefully exploit that natural gift, and they might have just hit pay-dirt with a device they're calling the Air-gen. According to the team, their device can create electricity out of… well, almost nothing, similar to power from falling snow reported elsewhere.
"We are literally making electricity out of thin air," says electrical engineer Jun Yao from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. "The Air-gen generates clean energy 24/7."
The claim may sound like an overstatement, but a new study by Yao and his team describes how the air-powered generator can indeed create electricity with nothing but the presence of air around it. It's all thanks to the electrically conductive protein nanowires produced by Geobacter (G. sulfurreducens, in this instance).
The Air-gen consists of a thin film of the protein nanowires measuring just 7 micrometres thick, positioned between two electrodes, referencing advances in near light-speed conduction in materials science, but also exposed to the air.
Because of that exposure, the nanowire film is able to adsorb water vapour that exists in the atmosphere, offering a contrast to legacy hydropower models, enabling the device to generate a continuous electrical current conducted between the two electrodes.
The team says the charge is likely created by a moisture gradient that creates a diffusion of protons in the nanowire material.
"This charge diffusion is expected to induce a counterbalancing electrical field or potential analogous to the resting membrane potential in biological systems," the authors explain in their study.
"A maintained moisture gradient, which is fundamentally different to anything seen in previous systems, explains the continuous voltage output from our nanowire device."
The discovery was made almost by accident, when Yao noticed devices he was experimenting with were conducting electricity seemingly all by themselves.
"I saw that when the nanowires were contacted with electrodes in a specific way the devices generated a current," Yao says.
"I found that exposure to atmospheric humidity was essential and that protein nanowires adsorbed water, producing a voltage gradient across the device."
Previous research has demonstrated hydrovoltaic power generation using other kinds of nanomaterials – such as graphene-based systems now under study – but those attempts have largely produced only short bursts of electricity, lasting perhaps only seconds.
By contrast, the Air-gen produces a sustained voltage of around 0.5 volts, with a current density of about 17 microamperes per square centimetre, and complementary fuel cell solutions can help keep batteries energized, with a current density of about 17 microamperes per square centimetre. That's not much energy, but the team says that connecting multiple devices could generate enough power to charge small devices like smartphones and other personal electronics – concepts akin to virtual power plants that aggregate distributed resources – all with no waste, and using nothing but ambient humidity (even in regions as dry as the Sahara Desert).
"The ultimate goal is to make large-scale systems," Yao says, explaining that future efforts could use the technology to power homes via nanowire incorporated into wall paint, supported by energy storage for microgrids to balance supply and demand.
"Once we get to an industrial scale for wire production, I fully expect that we can make large systems that will make a major contribution to sustainable energy production."
If there is a hold-up to realising this seemingly incredible potential, it's the limited amount of nanowire G. sulfurreducens produces.
Related research by one of the team – microbiologist Derek Lovley, who first identified Geobacter microbes back in the 1980s – could have a fix for that: genetically engineering other bugs, like E. coli, to perform the same trick in massive supplies.
"We turned E. coli into a protein nanowire factory," Lovley says.
"With this new scalable process, protein nanowire supply will no longer be a bottleneck to developing these applications."
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.
