Lara Lighthouse is fighting the planned route of a 230,000-volt power line near San Francisco because she's afraid it will make her family sick.
"We would have to move if this line is built too close to our property. We don't want to take the risks," she said.
California's push to build more transmission lines to satisfy growing demand for electricity is stirring concern over possible health effects from electric and magnetic fields -- EMFs -- created by electricity lines.
Angry homeowners in the paths of big transmission projects near San Francisco and in Southern California have bombarded state utility regulators with pleas to detour the lines away from homes, schools and offices.
A review of scientific studies by the state's Department of Health Services said there was no conclusive evidence that EMFs are harmful but studies have suggested links to childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig's disease and miscarriage.
The Edison Electric Institute, a utility industry trade group, said "although several studies conducted in the past suggest a link between proximity to power lines and some forms of childhood cancer, only a few show a statistically significant link and many show no link at all."
"Nationwide, EMF concerns have receded significantly over the years, and much of the opposition to new transmission projects has been of the garden-variety NIMBY type," said Jim Owen, an EEI spokesman. "However, EMF as an issue is unlikely ever to disappear entirely."
NEW POLICIES?
But Loretta Lynch of the California Public Utilities Commission said it was time the agency reexamined the EMF health situation "to see if we need to revise policies on transmission projects." The agency expects to get still more power line proposals for urban areas.
Despite strong opposition from EMF foes, the CPUC in July narrowly approved two transmission plans in Orange County and San Diego, but left the $207 million, 27-mile-long San Francisco area project for a decision in August.
California utilities, under pressure from the CPUC, are launching new transmission lines in fast-growing suburban areas to make the power grid more reliable.
More transmission capacity and new power plants aim to avert a rerun of California's electricity crisis in 2000-2001, when a supply shortfall triggered blackouts and the bankruptcy of PG&E Corp.'s Pacific Gas & Electric utility, the state's biggest.
Lighthouse, a mother of two young children, and several hundred of her neighbors in the San Francisco suburb of Burlingame fear that EMFs are harmful and want the PG&E line moved about a mile away from their homes and buried at least 11 feet deep.
"We are very concerned about EMFs and health risks. They have to be taken into account when routing power lines, so people are not exposed to high levels," Lighthouse said.
Underground lines usually are buried about 5 feet to 6 feet, but Paul Moreno, a PG&E spokesman, said the utility could go to 11 feet but does not want to shift the alignment as far as the neighbors do.
"EMFs are used in efforts to stop or realign transmission projects," he said. "The reality is these lines give off very low levels of EMFs at the right of way, far lower than you would find in homes, offices and schools."
Amur-Heihe ETL Power Supply Tripling will expand Russia-China electricity exports, extending 750 MW DC full-load hours to stabilize northeast China grids amid coal shortages, peak demand spikes, and cross-border energy security concerns.
Key Points
Russia will triple electricity via Amur-Heihe ETL, boosting 750 MW DC operations to relieve shortages in northeast China.
✅ 500 kV converter station increases full-load hours from 5 to 16
✅ Supports Heilongjiang, Liaoning, and Jilin grids amid coal shortfall
✅ Cross-border 750 MW DC link enhances reliability, peak demand coverage
Russia will triple electricity supplies via the Amur-Heihe electric transmission line (ETL) starting October 1, China Central Television has reported, a move seen within broader shifts in China's electricity sector by observers.
"Starting October 1, the overhead convertor substation of 500 kW (750 MW DC) will increase its daily time of operation with full loading from 5 to 16 hours per day," the TV channel said.
"This measure will make it possible to dramatically ease the situation with the electricity supply," the report said. Electricity from this converting station is used in three northeastern provinces of China - Heilongjiang, Liaoning and Jilin, while regional markets are strained as India rations coal supplies amid surging demand today. In 29 years, Russia supplied over 30 bln kilowatt hours of electricity, according to the channel.
The Amur-Heihe overhead transnational power line was constructed for increasing electricity exports to China, where projections see electricity to meet 60% of energy use by 2060 according to Shell. It was commissioned in 2012. Its maximum capacity is 750 MW.
China’s Jiemian News reported on September 27 that, amid nationwide power cuts affecting grids, 20 regions were limited in electricity supplies to a various extent due to the ongoing coal deficit. In particular, in China’s northeastern provinces, restrictions on power consumption were imposed not only on industrial enterprises, but also on households, as well as on office premises, raising concerns for U.S. solar supply chains among downstream manufacturers.
Later, China’s financial media Zhongxin Jingwei noted that the coal deficit had been triggered by price hikes brought on by tightened national environmental standards and efforts to reduce coal power production across the country. Reduced coal imports amid disruptions in the work of foreign suppliers due to the coronavirus pandemic was an additional reason, and earlier power demand drops as factories shuttered compounded imbalances.
Canadian EV Manufacturing is accelerating with GM, Ford, and Project Arrow, integrating cross-border supply chains, battery production, rare-earths like lithium and cobalt, autonomous tech, and home charging to drive clean mobility and decarbonization.
Key Points
Canadian EV manufacturing spans electric and autonomous vehicles, domestic batteries, and integrated US-Canada trade.
✅ GM and Ford retool plants for EVs and autonomous production
✅ Project Arrow showcases Canadian zero-emission supply capabilities
✅ Lithium, cobalt, and battery hubs target cross-border resilience
The storied North American automotive industry, the ultimate showcase of Canada’s high-tensile trade ties with the United States and emerging Canada-U.S. collaboration on EVs momentum, is about to navigate a dramatic hairpin turn.
But as the Big Three veer into the all-electric, autonomous era, some Canadians want to seize the moment and take the wheel.
“There’s a long shadow between the promise and the execution, but all the pieces are there,” says Flavio Volpe, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association.
“We went from a marriage on the rocks to one that both partners are committed to. It could be the best second chapter ever.”
Volpe is referring specifically to GM, which announced late last month an ambitious plan to convert its entire portfolio of vehicles to an all-electric platform by 2035.
But that decision is just part of a cascading transformation across the industry, marking an EV inflection point with existential ramifications for one of the most tightly integrated cross-border manufacturing and supply-chain relationships in the world.
China is already working hard to become the “source of a new way” to power vehicles, President Joe Biden warned last week.
“We just have to step up.”
Canada has both the resources and expertise to do the same, says Volpe, whose ambitious Project Arrow concept — a homegrown zero-emissions vehicle named for the 1950s-era Avro interceptor jet — is designed to showcase exactly that, as recent EV assembly deals in Canada underscore.
“We’re going to prove to the market, we’re going to prove to the (manufacturers) around the planet, that everything that goes into your zero-emission vehicle can be made or sourced here in Canada,” he says.
“If somebody wants to bring what we did over the line and make 100,000 of them a year, I’ll hand it to them.”
GM earned the ire of Canadian auto workers in 2018 by announcing the closure of its assembly plant in Oshawa, Ont. It later resurrected the facility with a $170-million investment to retool it for autonomous vehicles.
“It was, ‘You closed Oshawa, how dare you?’ And I was one of the ‘How dare you’ people,” Volpe says.
“Well, now that they’ve reopened Oshawa, you sit there and you open your eyes to the commitment that General Motors made.”
Ford, too, has entered the fray, promising $1.8 billion to retool its sprawling landmark facility in Oakville, Ont., to build EVs.
It’s a leap of faith of sorts, considering what market experts say is ongoing consumer doubt about EVs and EV supply shortages that drive wait times.
“Range anxiety” — the persistent fear of a depleted battery at the side of the road — remains a major concern, even though it’s less of a problem than most people think.
Consulting firm Deloitte Canada, which has been tracking automotive consumer trends for more than a decade, found three-quarters of future EV buyers it surveyed planned to charge their vehicles at home overnight.
“The difference between what is a perceived issue in a consumer’s mind and what is an actual issue is actually quite negligible,” Ryan Robinson, Deloitte’s automotive research leader, says in an interview.
“It’s still an issue, full stop, and that’s something that the industry is going to have to contend with.”
So, too, is price, especially with the end of the COVID-19 pandemic still a long way off. Deloitte’s latest survey, released last month, found 45 per cent of future buyers in Canada hope to spend less than $35,000 — a tall order when most base electric-vehicle models hover between $40,000 and $45,000.
“You put all of that together and there’s still, despite the electric-car revolution hype, some major challenges that a lot of stakeholders that touch the automotive industry face,” Robinson says.
“It’s not just government, it’s not just automakers, but there are a variety of stakeholders that have a role to play in making sure that Canadians are ready to make the transition over to electric mobility.”
With protectionism no longer a dirty word in the United States and Biden promising to prioritize American workers and suppliers, the Canadian government’s job remains the same as it ever was: making sure the U.S. understands Canada’s mission-critical role in its own economic priorities.
“We’re both going to be better off on both sides of the border, as we have been in the past, if we orient ourselves toward this global competition as one force,” says Gerald Butts, vice-chairman of the political-risk consultancy Eurasia Group and a former principal secretary to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
“It served us extraordinarily well in the past … and I have no reason to believe it won’t serve us well in the future.”
Last month, GM announced a billion-dollar plan to build its new all-electric BrightDrop EV600 van in Ingersoll, Ont., at Canada’s first large-scale EV manufacturing plant for delivery vehicles.
That investment, Volpe says, assumes Canada will take the steps necessary to help build a homegrown battery industry — with projects such as a new Niagara-region battery plant pointing the way — drawing on the country’s rare-earth resources like lithium and cobalt that are waiting to be extracted in northern Ontario, Quebec and elsewhere.
Given that the EV industry is still in his infancy, the free market alone won’t be enough to ensure those resources can be extracted and developed, he says.
“General Motors made a billion-dollar bet on Canada because it’s going to assume that the Canadian government — this one or the next one — is going to commit” to building that business.
Such an investment would pay dividends well beyond the auto sector, considering the federal Liberal government’s commitment to lowering greenhouse gas-emissions, including a 2035 EV mandate, and meeting targets set out in the Paris climate accord.
“If you make investments in renewable energy and utility storage using battery technology, you can build an industry at scale that the auto industry can borrow,” Volpe says.
Major manufacturing, retail and office facilities would be able to use that technology to help “shave the peak” off Canada’s GHG emissions and achieve those targets, all the while paving the way for a self-sufficient electric-vehicle industry.
“You’d be investing in the exact same technology you’d use in a car.”
There’s one problem, says Robinson: the lithium-ion batteries on roads right now might not be where the industry ultimately lands.
“We’re not done with with battery technology,” Robinson says. “What you don’t want to do is invest in a technology that is that is rapidly evolving, and could potentially become obsolete going forward.”
Fuel cells — energy-efficient, hydrogen-powered units that work like batteries, but without the need for constant recharging — continue to be part of the conversation, he adds.
“The amount of investment is huge, and you want to be sure that you’re making the right decision, so you don’t find yourself behind the curve just as all that capacity is coming online.”
Germany January Power Mix shows gas-fired generation rising, coal steady, and nuclear phaseout impacts, amid cold weather, energy prices, industrial demand, and emissions targets shaping renewables, grid stability, and security of supply.
Key Points
The January electricity mix, highlighting gas, coal, renewables, and nuclear exit effects on emissions, prices, and demand.
✅ Gas output up 13% to 8.74 TWh, share at 18.6%.
✅ Coal share 23%, down year on year, steady vs late 2023.
✅ Nuclear gap filled by gas and coal; emissions below Jan 2023.
Germany's electricity generation in January presented a fascinating snapshot of its energy transition journey. As the country strives to move away from fossil fuels, with renewables overtaking coal and nuclear in its power mix, it grapples with the realities of replacing nuclear power and meeting fluctuating energy demands.
Gas Takes the Lead:
Gas-fired power plants saw their highest output in two years, generating 8.74 terawatt hours (TWh). This 13% increase compared to January 2023 compensated for the closure of nuclear reactors, which were extended during the energy crisis to shore up supply, and colder weather driving up heating needs. This reliance on gas, however, pushed its share in the electricity mix to 18.6%, highlighting Germany's continued dependence on fossil fuels.
Coal Fades, but Not Forgotten:
While gas surged, coal-fired generation remained below previous levels, dropping 29% from January 2023. However, it stayed relatively flat compared to late 2023, suggesting utilities haven't entirely eliminated it. Coal still held a 23% share, and periodic coal reliance remains evident, exceeding gas' contribution, reflecting its role as a reliable backup for intermittent renewable sources like wind.
Nuclear Void and its Fallout:
The shutdown of nuclear plants in April 2023 created a significant gap, previously accounting for an average of 12% of annual electricity output. This loss is being compensated through gas and coal, with gas currently the preferred choice, even as a nuclear option debate persists among policymakers. This strategy kept January's power sector emissions lower than the previous year, but rising demand could shift the balance.
Industry's Uncertain Impact:
Germany's industrial sector, a major energy consumer, is facing challenges like high energy prices and weak consumer demand. While the government aims to foster industrial recovery, uncertainties linger due to a shaky coalition and limited budget, and debate about a possible nuclear resurgence continues in parallel, which could reshape policy. Any future industrial revival would likely increase energy demand and potentially necessitate more gas or coal.
Cost-Driven Choices and Emission Concerns:
The choice between gas and coal depends on their relative costs, in a system pursuing a coal and nuclear phase-out under long-term policy. Currently, gas seems more favorable emission-wise, but if its price rises, coal might become more attractive, impacting overall emissions.
Looking Ahead:
Germany's energy transition faces a complex balancing act, with persistent grid expansion woes and exposure to cheap gas complicating progress. While the reliance on gas and coal highlights the difficulties in replacing nuclear, the focus on emissions reduction is encouraging. Navigating the challenges of affordability, industrial needs, and climate goals will be crucial for a successful transition to a clean and secure energy future.
BCER Renewable Energy Permitting streamlines single-window approvals for wind, solar, and transmission projects in BC, cutting red tape, aligning with CleanBC, and accelerating investment, Indigenous partnerships, and low-carbon infrastructure growth provincewide.
Key Points
BC's single-window framework consolidates approvals for wind, solar, and transmission to accelerate energy projects.
✅ Single-window permits via BC Energy Regulator (BCER)
✅ Covers wind, solar, and high-voltage transmission lines
✅ Aligns with CleanBC, supports Indigenous partnerships
In a decisive move to bolster clean energy initiatives, the government of British Columbia (B.C.) has announced plans to overhaul the regulatory framework governing renewable energy projects. This initiative aims to expedite the development of wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources, positioning B.C. as a leader in sustainable energy production.
Transitioning Regulatory Authority to the BC Energy Regulator (BCER)
Central to this strategy is the proposed legislation, set to be introduced in spring 2025, which will transfer the permitting and regulatory oversight of renewable energy projects, aligning with offshore wind regulation plans at the federal level, from multiple agencies to the BC Energy Regulator (BCER). This transition is designed to create a "single-window" permitting process, simplifying approvals and reducing bureaucratic delays for developers.
Expanding BCER's Mandate
Historically known as the British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission, the BCER's mandate has evolved to encompass a broader range of energy projects. The upcoming legislation will empower the BCER to oversee renewable energy projects, including wind and solar, as well as high-voltage transmission lines like the North Coast Transmission Line (NCTL), in step with renewable transmission planning efforts elsewhere in North America. This expansion aims to streamline the regulatory process, providing developers with a single point of contact throughout the project lifecycle.
Economic and Environmental Implications
The restructuring is expected to unlock significant economic opportunities. Projections suggest that the streamlined process could attract between $5 billion and $6 billion in private investment and complement recent federal grid modernization funding initiatives, generating employment opportunities and fostering economic growth. Moreover, by facilitating the rapid deployment of renewable energy projects, B.C. aims to enhance its clean energy capacity, contributing to global sustainability goals.
Strengthening Partnerships with Indigenous Communities
A pivotal aspect of this initiative is the emphasis on collaboration with Indigenous communities. The government has highlighted the importance of engaging First Nations in the development process, ensuring that projects are not only environmentally sustainable but also socially responsible. This approach seeks to honor Indigenous rights and knowledge, fostering partnerships that benefit all stakeholders.
Supporting Infrastructure Development
The acceleration of renewable energy projects necessitates corresponding infrastructure enhancements. The NCTL, for instance, is crucial for meeting the increased electricity demand from sectors such as mining, port electrification, and hydrogen production, and for addressing regional grid constraints that limit renewable integration. By improving the transmission infrastructure, B.C. aims to support the growing energy needs of these industries while promoting clean energy solutions.
Aligning with CleanBC Objectives
This regulatory overhaul aligns seamlessly with B.C.'s CleanBC initiative, which sets ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting energy efficiency, and supports Canada's goal of zero-emissions electricity by 2035 under active consideration. By removing regulatory barriers and expediting project approvals, the government aims to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy, positioning B.C. as a hub for clean energy innovation.
Addressing Potential Challenges
While the initiative has been lauded for its potential, experts caution that careful consideration must be given to environmental assessments and Indigenous consultation processes, as well as to lessons from Alberta's solar expansion challenges on land use and grid impacts. Ensuring that projects meet environmental standards and respect Indigenous rights is crucial for the long-term success and acceptance of renewable energy developments.
The proposed changes mark a significant shift in B.C.'s approach to energy development, reflecting a commitment to sustainability and economic growth. As the legislation moves through the legislative process, stakeholders across the energy sector are closely monitoring developments, particularly as Alberta ends its renewables moratorium and resumes project approvals across the Prairies, anticipating a more efficient and transparent regulatory environment that supports the rapid expansion of renewable energy projects.
B.C.'s plan to streamline the regulatory process for clean energy projects represents a bold step toward a sustainable and prosperous energy future. By consolidating regulatory authority under the BCER, fostering Indigenous partnerships, and aligning with broader environmental objectives, the province is setting a precedent for effective governance in the transition to renewable energy.
Philippsburg Demolition Delay: EnBW postpones controlled cooling-tower blasts amid the coronavirus pandemic, affecting decommissioning timelines in Baden-Wurttemberg and grid expansion for a transformer station to route renewable power and secure supply in southern Germany.
Key Points
EnBW's COVID-19 delay of Philippsburg cooling-tower blasts, affecting decommissioning and grid plans.
✅ Controlled detonation shifted to mid-May at earliest
✅ Demolition links to transformer station for north-south grid
✅ Supports security of supply in southern Germany
German energy company EnBW said the coronavirus outbreak has impacted plans to dismantle its Philippsburg nuclear power plant in Baden-Wurttemberg, southwest Germany, amid plans to phase out coal and nuclear nationally.
The controlled detonation of Phillipsburg's cooling towers will now take place in mid-May at the earliest, subject to coordination as Germany debates whether to reconsider its nuclear phaseout in light of supply needs.
However, EnBW said the exact demolition date depends on many factors - including the further development in the coronavirus pandemic and ongoing climate policy debates about energy choices.
Philippsburg 2, a 1402MWe pressurised water reactor unit permanently shut down on 31 December 2019, as part of Germany's broader effort to shut down its remaining reactors over time.
At the end of 2019, the Ministry of the Environment gave basic approval for decommissioning and dismantling of unit 2 of the Philippsburg nuclear power plant, inluding explosive demolition of the colling towers. Since then EnBW has worked intensively on getting all the necessary formal steps on the way and performing technical and logistical preparatory work, even as discussions about a potential nuclear resurgence continue nationwide.
“The demolition of the cooling towers is directly related to future security of supply in southern Germany. We therefore feel obliged to drive this project forward," said Jörg Michels head of the EnBW nuclear power division.
The timely removal of the cooling towers is important as the area currently occupied by nuclear plant components is needed for a transformer station for long-distance power lines, an issue underscored during the energy crisis when Germany temporarily extended nuclear power to bolster supply. These will transport electricity from renewable sources in the north to industrial centres in the south.
As of early 2020, there six nuclear reactors in operation in Germany, even as the country turned its back on nuclear in subsequent years. According to research institute Fraunhofer ISE, nuclear power provided about 14% of Germany's net electricity in 2019, less than half of the figure for 2000.
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.
