Comparing A new study titled "Carrying the Energy Future: Comparing Hydrogen and Electricity for Transmission, Storage and Transportation" by the Seattle based Institute for Lifecycle Environmental Assessment (ILEA,) evaluated the energy penalties incurred in using hydrogen to transmit energy as compared to those incurred using electricity.
The report's main premise is that since hydrogen is not an energy source but an energy carrier its economic and environmental qualities should be compared to those of electricity, the only other commonplace energy carrier. It therefore compares the actual energy available when hydrogen and electricity carriers are employed and finds that electricity delivers substantially greater end use energy, concluding that "electricity offers more energy efficient options that might preclude mass-scale emergence of hydrogen technologies."
To illustrate the relative efficiencies of the two energy transmission methods, the study evaluated transmission of 4,000 megawatts of wind energy generated in the Great Plains wind fields to Chicago. Carrying the energy generated from remote renewable sources - solar, wind, etc. - to distant markets as hydrogen, requires that the electricity generated in wind turbines or solar panels be used to break water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen in a process called electrolysis. At the point of use (eg. on board a fuel cell vehicle,) hydrogen must again be converted into electricity.
Once energy penalties are taken into account, the above process leaves only 45-55% of the original energy compared to 92% if transmitted as electricity. Electrical transmission provides roughly twice the end use energy.
Storage is no less of a problem. Hydrogen is envisaged as a medium to store energy generated by renewables, making power available on demand. However the same aforementioned energy penalties apply while other energy storage technologies deliver comparatively more energy. Hydrogen storage returns around 47% of original energy, while advanced batteries return 75-85%.
According to the report, using electricity to charge electric vehicles (EVs) provides twice the miles per kilowatt hour than employing electricity to make hydrogen fuel. Lithium ion batteries developed for portable electronics can store electricity at an energy density about six times greater than conventional lead acid batteries and in the future could go nearly 250 miles between charges.
The report's authors Patrick Mazza and Roel Hammerschlag are particularly enthusiastic about plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV). Hybrid cars like Toyota Prius are already on the road today by the thousands. Their batteries are kept charged by power generated onboard. True to their name, plug in HEVs are hybrids that can be plugged in and draw charge from the power grid. Since they also have a fuel tank, PHEVs can take advantage of EV efficiencies without range and charge time limitations.
With a nickel metal hydride battery, similar to the one used in hybrids today, a PHEV could go up to 60 miles on grid power before the engine seamlessly kicks in. Considering the fact that half the cars on the road in the U.S. are driven fewer than 20 miles per day, most drivers, assuming they recharge their cars at night, will seldom have to dip into their gasoline tank. As a result, PHEV could reduce fuel consumption 85% over a comparable conventional car. That means that a plug-in hybrid SUV would consume less gasoline than a "regular" compact car, without a performance penalty. If such car runs on alcohol fuels instead of gasoline, oil consumption could be reduced even further.
The study distinguishes between hydrogen and fuel cells. While a hydrogen fuel system is hindered by multiple inefficiencies, fuel cells can form an important part of highly efficient systems that convert alcohol fuels to electricity. Fuel cells can operate as stationary electrical generators, potentially at significantly higher efficiencies than central power stations or other distributed generators. Emergence of a substantial fuel cell market is in no way conditioned on mass application in vehicles or development of a hydrogen network.
The study recommends that hydrogen and electricity advocates focus on complementary development that can support both pathways. This includes rapid expansion of renewables, improvement in hybrid vehicle technology, vehicle-to-grid applications that employ parked vehicles as grid energy storage, and development of biomass supplies from which liquid vehicle fuels and hydrogen can be made.
Canada Clean Electricity Regulations 2050 balance net-zero goals with grid reliability and affordability, setting emissions caps, enabling offset credits, and flexible provincial pathways, including support for non-grid facilities during the clean energy transition.
Key Points
A federal plan for a net-zero grid by 2050 with emissions caps, offsets, and flexible provincial compliance.
✅ Emissions cap targeting 181 Mt CO2 from the power sector by 2050
✅ Offset credits and annual limits enable compliance flexibility
✅ Support for remote, non-grid facilities and regional pathways
In December 2024, the Government of Canada announced a significant policy shift regarding its clean electricity objectives. The initial target to achieve a net-zero electricity grid by 2035 has been extended to 2050. This decision reflects the government's response to feedback from provinces and energy industry stakeholders, who expressed concerns about the feasibility of meeting the 2035 deadline.
Revised Clean Electricity Regulations
The newly finalized Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) outline the framework for Canada's transition to a net-zero electricity grid by 2050, advancing the goal of 100 per cent clean electricity nationwide.
Emissions Reduction Targets: The regulations set a cap on emissions from the electricity sector, targeting a reduction of 181 megatonnes of CO₂ by 2050. This is a decrease from the previous goal of 342 megatonnes, reflecting a more gradual approach to emissions reduction.
Flexibility Mechanisms: To accommodate the diverse energy landscapes across provinces, the CER introduces flexibility measures. These include annual emissions limits and the option to use offset credits, allowing provinces to tailor their strategies while adhering to national objectives.
Support for Non-Grid Connected Facilities: Recognizing the unique challenges of remote and off-grid communities, the regulations provide accommodations for certain non-grid connected facilities, ensuring that all regions can contribute to the national clean electricity goals.
Implications for Canada's Energy Landscape
The extension of the net-zero electricity target to 2050 signifies a strategic recalibration of Canada's energy policy. This adjustment acknowledges the complexities involved in transitioning to a clean energy future, including:
Grid Modernization: Upgrading the electrical grid to accommodate renewable energy sources and ensure reliability is a critical component of the transition, especially as Ontario's EV wave accelerates across the province.
Economic Considerations: Balancing environmental objectives with economic impacts is essential. The government aims to create over 400,000 clean energy jobs, fostering economic growth while reducing emissions, supported by ambitious EV goals in the transport sector.
Regional Variations: Provinces have diverse energy profiles and resources, and British Columbia's power supply challenges highlight planning constraints. The CER's flexibility mechanisms are designed to accommodate these differences, allowing for tailored approaches that respect regional contexts.
Public and Industry Reactions
The policy shift has elicited varied responses:
Environmental Advocates: Some environmental groups express concern that the extended timeline may delay critical climate action, while debates over Quebec's push for EV dominance underscore policy trade-offs. They emphasize the need for more ambitious targets to address the escalating impacts of climate change.
Industry Stakeholders: The energy sector generally welcomes the extended timeline, viewing it as a pragmatic approach that allows for a more measured transition, particularly amid criticism of the 2035 EV mandate in transportation policy. The flexibility provisions are particularly appreciated, as they provide the necessary leeway to adapt to evolving market and technological conditions.
Looking Forward
As Canada moves forward with the implementation of the Clean Electricity Regulations, the focus will be on:
Monitoring Progress: Establishing robust mechanisms to track emissions reductions and ensure compliance with the new targets.
Stakeholder Engagement: Continuing dialogue with provinces, industry, and communities to refine strategies and address emerging challenges, including coordination on EV sales regulations as complementary measures.
Innovation and Investment: Encouraging the development and deployment of clean energy technologies through incentives and support programs.
The extension of Canada's net-zero electricity target to 2050 represents a strategic adjustment aimed at achieving a balance between environmental goals and practical implementation considerations. The Clean Electricity Regulations provide a framework that accommodates regional differences and industry concerns, setting the stage for a sustainable and economically viable energy future.
New England Solar Interconnection Costs highlight distributed generation strains, transmission charges, distribution upgrades, and DAF fees as National Grid maps hosting capacity, driving queue delays and FERC disputes in Rhode Island and Massachusetts.
Key Points
Rising upfront grid upgrade and DAF charges for distributed solar in RI and MA, including some transmission costs.
✅ Upfront grid upgrades shifted to project developers
✅ DAF and transmission charges increase per MW costs
✅ Queue delays tied to hosting capacity and cluster studies
Solar developers in Rhode Island and Massachusetts say soaring charges to interconnect with the electric grid are threatening the viability of projects.
As more large-scale solar projects line up for connections, developers are being charged upfront for the full cost of the infrastructure upgrades required, a long-common practice that they say is now becoming untenable amid debates over a new solar customer charge in Nova Scotia.
“It is a huge issue that reflects an under-invested grid that is not ready for the volume of distributed generation that we’re seeing and that we need, particularly solar,” said Jeremy McDiarmid, vice president for policy and government affairs at the Northeast Clean Energy Council, a nonprofit business organization.
Connecting solar and wind systems to the grid often requires upgrades to the distribution system to prevent problems, such as voltage fluctuations and reliability risks highlighted by Australian distributors in their networks. Costs can vary considerably from place to place, depending on the amount of distributed generation coming online and the level of capacity planning by regulators, said David Feldman, a senior financial analyst at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
“Certainly the Northeast often has more distribution challenges than much of the rest of the country just because it’s more populous and often the infrastructure is older,” he said. “But it’s not unique to the Northeast — in the Midwest, for example, there’s a significant amount of wind projects in the queues and significant delays.”
In Rhode Island and Massachusetts, where strong incentive programs are driving solar development, the level of solar coming online is “exposing the under-investment in the distribution system that is causing these massive costs that National Grid is assigning to particular projects or particular groups of projects,” McDiarmid said. “It is going to be a limiting factor for how much clean energy we can develop and bring online.”
Frank Epps, chief executive officer at Energy Development Partners, has been developing solar projects in Rhode Island since 2010. In that time, he said, interconnection charges on his projects have grown from about $80,000-$120,000 per megawatt to more than $400,000 per megawatt. He attributed the increase to a lack of investment in the distribution network by National Grid over the last decade.
He and other developers say the utility is now adding further to their costs by passing along not just the cost of improving the distribution system — the equivalent of the city street of the grid that brings power directly to customers — but also costs for modifying the transmission system — the interstate highway that moves bulk power over long distances to substations.
Solar developers who are only requesting to hook into the distribution system, and not applying for transmission service, say they should not be charged for those additional upgrades under state interconnection rules unless they are properly authorized under the federal law that governs the transmission system.
A Rhode Island solar and wind developer filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in February over transmission system improvement charges for its four proposed solar projects. Green Development said National Grid subsidiaries Narragansett Electric and New England Power Company want to charge the company more than $500,000 a year in operating and maintenance expenses assessed as so-called direct assignment facility charges.
“This amount nearly doubles the interconnection costs associated with the projects,” which total 38.4 megawatts in North Smithfield, the company says in its complaint. “Crucially, these charges are linked to recovering costs associated with providing transmission service — even though no such transmission service is being provided to Green Development.”
But Ted Kresse, a spokesperson for National Grid, said the direct assignment facility, or DAF, construct has been in place for decades and has been applied to any customer affecting the need for transmission upgrades.
“It is the result of the high penetration and continued high volume of distributed generation interconnections that has recently prompted the need for transmission upgrades, and subsequently the pass-through of the associated DAF charges,” he said.
Several complaints before the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission object to these DAF and other transmission charges.
One petition for dispute resolution concerns four solar projects totaling 40 MW being developed by Energy Development Partners in a former gravel pit in North Kingstown. Brown University has agreed to purchase the power.
The developer signed interconnection service agreements with Narragansett Electric in 2019 requiring payment of $21.6 million for costs associated with connecting the projects at a new Wickford Junction substation. Last summer, Narragansett sought to replace those agreements with new ones that reclassified a portion of the costs as transmission-level costs, through New England Power, National Grid’s transmission subsidiary.
That shift would result in additional operational and maintenance charges of $835,000 per year for the estimated 35-year life of the projects, the complaint says.
“This came as a complete shock to us,” Epps said. “We’re not just paying for the maintenance of a new substation. We are paying a share of the total cost that the system owner has to own and operate the transmission system. So all of the sudden, it makes it even tougher for distributed energy resources to be viable.”
In its response to the petition, National Grid argues that the charges are justified because the solar projects will require transmission-level upgrades at the new substation. The company argues that the developer should be responsible for the costs rather than ratepayers, “who are already supporting renewable energy development through their electric rates.”
Seth Handy, one of the lawyers representing Green Development in the FERC complaint, argues that putting transmission system costs on distribution assets is unfair because the distributed resources are “actually reducing the need to move electricity long distances. We’ve been fighting these fights a long time over the underestimating of the value of distributed energy in reducing system costs.”
Handy is also representing the Episcopal Diocese of Rhode Island before the state Supreme Court in its appeal of an April 2020 public utilities commission order upholding similar charges for a proposed 2.2-megawatt solar project at the diocese’s conference center and camp in Glocester.
Todd Bianco, principal policy associate at the utilities commission, said neither he nor the chairperson can comment on the pending dockets contesting these charges. But he noted that some of these issues are under discussion in another docket examining National Grid’s standards for connecting distributed generation. Among the proposals being considered is the appointment of an independent ombudsperson to resolve interconnection disputes.
Separately, legislation pending before the Rhode Island General Assembly would remove responsibility for administering the interconnection of renewable energy from utilities, and put it under the authority of the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank, a financing agency.
Handy, who recently testified in support of the bill, said he believes National Grid has too many conflicting interests to administer interconnecting charges in a timely, transparent and fair fashion, and pointed to utility moves such as changes to solar compensation in other states as examples. In particular, he noted the company’s interests in expanding natural gas infrastructure.
“There are all kinds of economic interests that they have that conflict with our state policy to provide lower-cost renewable energy and more secure energy solutions,” Handy said.
In testimony submitted to the House Committee on Corporations opposing the legislation, National Grid said such powers are well beyond the purpose and scope of the infrastructure bank. And it cited figures showing Rhode Island is third in the country for the most installed solar per square mile (behind New Jersey and Massachusetts).
Nadav Enbar, program manager at the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit research organization for the utility industry, said interconnection delays and higher costs are becoming more common due to “the incredible uptake” in distributed renewable energy, particularly solar.
That’s impacting hosting capacity, the room available to connect all resources to a circuit without causing adverse harm to reliability and safety.
“As hosting capacity is being reduced, it’s causing an increasing number of situations where utilities need to study their systems to guarantee interconnection without compromising their systems,” he said. “And that is the reason why you’re starting to see some delays, and it has translated into some greater costs because of the need for upgrades to infrastructure.”
The cost depends on the age or absence of infrastructure, projected load growth, the number of renewable energy projects in the queue, and other factors, he said. As utilities come under increasing pressure to meet state renewable goals, and as some states pilot incentives like a distributed energy rebate in Illinois to drive utility innovation, some (including National Grid) are beginning to provide hosting capacity maps that provide detailed information to developers and policymakers about the amount of distributed energy that can be accommodated at various locations on the grid, he said.
In addition, the coming availability of high-tech “smart inverters” should help ease some of these problems because they provide the grid with more flexibility when it comes to connecting and communicating with distributed energy resources, Enbar said.
In Massachusetts, the Department of Public Utilities has opened a docket to explore ways to better plan for and share the cost of upgrading distribution infrastructure to accommodate solar and other renewable energy sources as part of a grid overhaul for renewables nationwide. National Grid has been conducting “cluster studies” there that attempt to analyze the transmission impacts of a group of solar projects and the corresponding interconnection cost to each developer.
Kresse, of National Grid, said the company favors cost-sharing methodologies under consideration that would “provide a pathway to spread cost over the total enabled capacity from the upgrade, as opposed to spreading the cost over only those customers in the queue today.”
Solar developers want regulators to take an even broader approach that factors in how the deployment of renewables and the resulting infrastructure upgrades benefit not just the interconnecting generator, but all customers.
“Right now, if your project is the one that causes a multimillion-dollar upgrade, you are assigned that cost even though that upgrade is going to benefit a lot of other projects, as well as make the grid stronger,” said McDiarmid, of the clean energy council. “What we’re asking for is a way of allocating those costs among a variety of developers, as well as to the grid itself, meaning ratepayers. There’s a societal benefit to increasing the modernization of the grid, and improving the resilience of the grid.”
In the meantime, BlueHub Capital, a Boston-based solar developer focused on serving affordable housing developments, recently learned from National Grid that, as a part of one of the area studies, it will be required to pay $5.8 million in transmission and distribution upgrades to interconnect a 2-megawatt solar-plus-storage project that leverages cheaper batteries to enhance resilience, approved for a brownfield site in Gardner, Massachusetts.
According to testimony submitted to the department, the sum is supposed to be paid within the next year, even though the project will have to wait to be interconnected until April 2027, when a new transmission line is completed. In addition, BlueHub will be responsible for DAF charges totaling $3.4 million over the 20-year life of the project.
“We’re being asked to pay a fortune to provide solar that the state wants,” said DeWitt Jones, BlueHub’s president. “It’s so expensive that the upgrades are driving everyone out of the interconnection queue. The costs stay the same, but they fall on fewer projects. We need a process of grid design and modernization to guide this.”
COVID-19 Impact on U.S. Wind Industry: disrupting wind power projects, tax credits, and construction timelines, risking rural revenues, jobs, and $35B investments; AWEA seeks Congressional flexibility as OEM shutdowns like Siemens Gamesa intensify delays.
Key Points
Pandemic disruptions threaten 25 GW of projects, $35B investment, rural revenues, jobs, and tax-credit timelines.
✅ 25 GW at risk; $35B investment jeopardized
✅ Rural taxes and land-lease payments may drop $8B
✅ AWEA seeks Congressional flexibility on tax-credit deadlines
In one of the latest examples of the havoc that the novel coronavirus is wreaking on the U.S. economy and the crisis hitting solar and wind sector alike, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) -- the national trade association for the U.S. wind industry -- yesterday stated its concerns that COVID-19 will "pose significant challenges to the American wind power industry." According to AWEA's calculations, the disease is jeopardizing the development of approximately 25 gigawatts of wind projects, representing $35 billion in investments, even as wind additions persist in some markets amid the pandemic.
Rural communities, where about 99% of wind projects are located, in particular, face considerable risk. The AWEA estimates that rural communities stand to lose about $8 billion in state and local tax payments and land-lease payments to private landowners. In addition, it's estimated that the pandemic threatens the loss of over 35,000 jobs, and the U.S. wind jobs outlook underscores the stakes, including wind turbine technicians, construction workers, and factory workers.
The development of wind projects is heavily reliant on the earning of tax credits, and debates over a Solar ITC extension highlight potential impacts on wind. However, in order to qualify for the current credits, project developers are bound to begin construction before Dec. 31, 2020. With local and state governments implementing various measures to stop the spread of the virus, the success of project developers' meeting this deadline is dubious, as utility-scale solar construction slows nationwide due to COVID-19. Addressing this and other challenges, the AWEA is turning to the government for help. In the trade association's press release, it states that "to protect the industry and these workers, AWEA is asking Congress for flexibility in allowing existing policies to continue working for the industry through this period of uncertainty."
Illustrating one of the ways in which COVID-19 is affecting the industry, Siemens Gamesa, a global leader in the manufacturing of wind turbines, closed a second Spanish factory this week after learning that a second of its employees had tested positive for the novel coronavirus.
Existing Nuclear Reactor Lifetime Extension sustains carbon-free electricity, supports deep decarbonization, and advances net zero climate goals by preserving the US nuclear fleet, stabilizing the grid, and complementing advanced reactors.
Key Points
Extending licenses keeps carbon-free nuclear online, stabilizes grid, and accelerates decarbonization toward net zero.
✅ Preserves 24/7 carbon-free baseload to meet climate targets
✅ Avoids emissions and replacement costs from premature retirements
✅ Complements advanced reactors; reduces capital and material needs
Nuclear power is the single largest source of carbon-free energy in the United States and currently provides nearly 20 percent of the nation’s electrical demand. As a result, many analyses have investigated the potential of future nuclear energy contributions in addressing climate change and investing in carbon-free electricity across the sector. However, few assess the value of existing nuclear power reactors.
Research led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Earth scientist Son H. Kim, with the Joint Global Change Research Institute (JGCRI), a partnership between PNNL and the University of Maryland, has added insight to the scarce literature and is the first to evaluate nuclear energy for meeting deep decarbonization goals amid rising credit risks for nuclear power identified by Moody's. Kim sought to answer the question: How much do our existing nuclear reactors contribute to the mission of meeting the country’s climate goals, both now and if their operating licenses were extended?
As the world races to discover solutions for reaching net zero as part of the global energy transition now underway, Kim’s report quantifies the economic value of bringing the existing nuclear fleet into the year 2100. It outlines its significant contributions to limiting global warming.
Plants slated to close by 2050 could be among the most important players in a challenge requiring all available carbon-free technology solutions—emerging and existing—alongside renewable electricity in many regions, the report finds. New nuclear technology also has a part to play, and its contributions could be boosted by driving down construction costs.
“Even modest reductions in capital costs could bring big climate benefits,” said Kim. “Significant effort has been incorporated into the design of advanced reactors to reduce the use of all materials in general, such as concrete and steel because that directly translates into reduced costs and carbon emissions.”
Nuclear power reactors face an uncertain future, and some utilities face investor pressure to release climate reports as well.
The nuclear power fleet in the United States consists of 93 operating reactors across 28 states. Most of these plants were constructed and deployed between 1970-1990. Half of the fleet has outlived its original operating license lifetime of 40 years. While most reactors have had their licenses renewed for an additional 20 years, and some for another 20, the total number of reactors that will receive a lifetime extension to operate a full 80 years from deployment is uncertain.
Other countries also rely on nuclear energy. In France, for example, nuclear energy provides 70 percent of the country’s power supply. They and other countries must also consider extending the lifetime, retiring, or building new, modern reactors while navigating Canadian climate policy implications for electricity grids. However, the U.S. faces the potential retirement of many reactors in a short period—this could have a far stronger impact than the staggered closures other countries may experience.
“Our existing nuclear power plants are aging, and with their current 60-year lifetimes, nearly all of them will be gone by 2050. It’s ironic. We have a net zero goal to reach by 2050, yet our single largest source of carbon-free electricity is at risk of closure, as seen in New Zealand's electricity transition debates,“ said Kim.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
Alberta Lithium Brine can power EV batteries via direct lithium extraction, leveraging oilfield infrastructure and critical minerals policy to build a low-carbon supply chain with clean energy, lower emissions, and domestic manufacturing advantages.
Key Points
Alberta lithium brine is subsurface saline water rich in lithium, extracted via DLE to supply EV batteries.
✅ Uses direct lithium extraction from oilfield brines
✅ Leverages Alberta infrastructure and skilled workforce
✅ Supports EV battery supply chain with lower emissions
After a most difficult several months, Canadians are cautiously emerging from their COVID-19 isolation and confronting a struggling economy.
There’s a growing consensus that we need to build back better from COVID-19, and to position for the U.S. auto sector’s pivot to electric vehicles as supply chains evolve. Instead of shoring up the old economy as we did following the 2008 financial crisis, we need to make strategic investments today that will prepare Canada for tomorrow’s economy.
Tomorrow’s energy system will look very different from today’s — and that tomorrow is coming quickly. The assets of today’s energy economy can help build and launch the new industries required for a low-carbon future. And few opportunities are more intriguing than the growing lithium market.
The world needs lithium – and Alberta has plenty
It’s estimated that three billion tonnes of metals will be required to generate clean energy by 2050. One of those key metals – lithium, a light, highly conductive metal – is critical to the construction of battery electric vehicles (BEV). As global automobile manufacturers design hundreds of new BEVs, demand for lithium is expected to triple in the next five years alone, a trend sharpened by pandemic-related supply risks for automakers.
Most lithium today originates from either hard rock or salt flats in Australia and South America. Alberta’s oil fields hold abundant deposits of lithium in subsurface brine, but so far it’s been overlooked as industrial waste. With new processing technologies and growing concerns about the security of global supplies, this is set to change. In January, Canada and the U.S. finalized a Joint Action Plan on Critical Minerals to ensure supply security for critical minerals such as lithium and to promote supply chains closer to home, aligning with U.S. efforts to secure EV metals among allies worldwide.
This presents a major opportunity for Canada and Alberta. Lithium brine will be produced much like the oil that came before it. This lithium originates from many of the same reservoirs responsible for driving both Alberta’s economy and the broader transportation fuel sector for decades. The province now has extensive geological data and abundant infrastructure, including roads, power lines, rail and well sites. Most importantly, Alberta has a highly trained workforce. With very little retooling, the province could deliver significant volumes of newly strategic lithium.
Specialized technologies known as direct lithium extraction, or DLE, are being developed to unlock lithium-brine resources like those in Canada. In Alberta, E3 Metals* has formed a development partnership with U.S. lithium heavyweight Livent Corporation to advance and pilot its DLE technology. Prairie Lithium and LiEP Energy formed a joint venture to pilot lithium extraction in Saskatchewan. And Vancouver’s Standard Lithium is already piloting its own DLE process in southern Arkansas, where the geology is very similar to Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Heavy on quality, light on emissions
All lithium produced today has a carbon footprint, most of which can be tied back to energy-intensive processing. The purity of lithium is essential to battery safety and performance, but this comes at a cost when lithium is mined with trucks and shovels and then refined in coal-heavy China.
As automakers look to source more sustainable raw materials, battery recycling will complement responsible extraction, and Alberta’s experience with green technologies such as renewable electricity and carbon capture and storage can make it one of the world’s largest suppliers of zero-carbon lithium.
Beyond raw materials
The rewards would be considerable. E3 Metals’ Alberta project alone could generate annual revenues of US$1.8 billion by 2030, based on projected production and price forecasts. This would create thousands of direct jobs, as initiatives like a lithium-battery workforce initiative expand training, and many more indirectly.
To truly grow this industry, however, Canada needs to move beyond its comfort zone. Rather than produce lithium as yet another raw-commodity export, Canadians should be manufacturing end products, such as batteries, for the electrified economy, with recent EV assembly deals underscoring Canada’s momentum. With nickel and cobalt refining, graphite resources and abundant petrochemical infrastructure already in place, Canada must aim for a larger piece of the supply chain.
By 2030, the global battery market is expected to be worth $116 billion annually. The timing is right to invest in a strategic commodity and grow our manufacturing sector. This is why the Alberta-based Energy Futures Lab has called lithium one of the ‘Five big ideas for Alberta’s economic recovery.’ The assets of today’s energy economy can be used to help build and launch new resource industries like lithium, required for the low-carbon energy system of the future.
Industry needs support
To do this, however, governments will have to step up the way they did a generation ago. In 1975, the Alberta government kick-started oil-sands development by funding the Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority. AOSTRA developed a technology called SAGD (steam-assisted gravity drainage) that now accounts for 80% of Alberta’s in situ oil-sands production.
Canada’s lithium industry needs similar support. Despite the compelling long-term economics of lithium, some industry investors need help to balance the risks of pioneering such a new industry in Canada. The U.S. government has recognized a similar need, with the Department of Energy’s recent US$30 million earmarked for innovation in critical minerals processing and the California Energy Commission’s recent grants of US$7.8 million for geothermal-related lithium extraction.
To accelerate lithium development in Canada, this kind of leadership is needed. Government-assisted financing could help early-stage lithium-extraction technologies kick-start a whole new industry.
Aspiring lithium producers are also looking for government’s help to repurpose inactive oil and gas wells. The federal government has earmarked $1 billion for cleaning up inactive Alberta oil wells. Allocating a small percentage of that total for repurposing wells could help transform environmental liabilities into valuable clean-energy assets.
The North American lithium-battery supply chain will soon be looking for local sources of supply, and there is room for Canada-U.S. collaboration as companies turn to electric cars, strengthening regional resilience.
