India will unveil its first solar power target as soon as September, pledging to boost output from near zero to 20 gigawatts (GW) by 2020 as it firms up its national plan to fight global warming, draft documents show.
The target, which would help India close the gap on solar front-runners like China, is part of an ambitious $19 billion, 30-year scheme that could increase India's leverage in international talks for a new U.N. climate pact in December, one of several measures meant to help cut emissions.
If fully implemented, solar power would be equivalent to one-eighth of India's current installed power base, helping the world's fourth-largest emitter of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions limit its heavy reliance on dirty coal and assuaging the nagging power deficit that has crimped its growth.
The "National Solar Mission," yet to be formally adopted by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's special panel on climate, envisages the creation of a statutory solar authority that would make it mandatory for states to buy some solar power, according to a draft of the plan, which provided detailed proposals for the first time, obtained by Reuters, "The aspiration is to ensure large-scale deployment of solar generated power for both grid connected as well as distributed and decentralized off-grid provision of commercial energy services," the policy draft said.
Confirming the proposed plan, a top Indian climate official told Reuters that the mission contained "quite stiff" targets that could be announced in September. In June a senior climate official had hoped it could be submitted this month.
"The draft should not change much and the target of 20 GW will be there," the official said on condition of anonymity because the issue was still under discussion.
Money would be spent on incentives for production and installation as well research and development, and the plan offers financial incentives and tax holidays for utilities.
It envisions three phases starting with 1-1.5 GW by 2012 along with steps to drive down production costs of solar panels and spur domestic manufacturing. The world now produces about 14 gigawatts (GW) of solar power, about half of it added last year.
The move could unlock India's huge renewables potential and benefit companies such as Tata BP Solar, a joint venture between Tata Power and BP plc's solar unit, BP Solar, and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd, a state-run power and engineering equipment firm, and Lanco Infratech.
Shares in Chinese solar equipment firms like Suntech Power Holdings and Trina Solar have tripled since March, when Beijing first announced subsidies; Beijing is widely expected soon to raise its solar target to up to 20 GW by 2020.
Japan is targeting 28 GW of solar power by 2020.
India's climate plan released last year identified harnessing renewable energy, such as solar power, and energy efficiency as central to its fight against global warming. At the moment only about 8 percent of India's total power mix is from renewables, although it is a leading provider of wind power technology.
Experts say the voluntary domestic action will add to India's bargaining power in international negotiations, although India's refusal to commit to any binding emission targets has angered many rich countries demanding greater commitment.
"Such unilateral action will give India the moral high-ground because the rich countries have not committed to anything (in terms of finance and technology)," said Siddharth Pathak, Greenpeace India's chief climate campaigner.
Summer Heatwave Electricity Shutoffs strain utilities and vulnerable communities, highlighting energy assistance, utility moratoriums, cooling centers, demand response, and grid resilience amid extreme heat, climate change, and rising air conditioning loads.
Key Points
Service disconnections for unpaid bills during extreme heat, risking vulnerable households and straining power grids.
✅ Moratoriums and flexible payment plans reduce shutoff risk.
✅ Cooling centers and assistance programs protect at-risk residents.
✅ Demand response, smart grids, and efficiency ease peak loads.
As summer temperatures soar, millions of people across the United States face the grim prospect of electricity shutoffs due to unpaid bills, as heat exacerbates electricity struggles for many families nationwide. This predicament highlights a critical issue exacerbated by extreme weather conditions and economic disparities.
The Challenge of Summer Heatwaves
Summer heatwaves not only strain power grids, as unprecedented electricity demand has shown, but also intensify energy consumption as households and businesses crank up their air conditioning units. This surge in demand places considerable stress on utilities, particularly in regions unaccustomed to prolonged heatwaves or lacking adequate infrastructure to cope with increased loads.
Vulnerable Populations
The threat of electricity shutoffs disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, including low-income households who face sky-high energy bills during extreme heat, elderly individuals, and those with underlying health conditions. Lack of access to air conditioning during extreme heat can lead to heat-related illnesses such as heat exhaustion and heatstroke, posing serious health risks.
Economic and Social Implications
The economic impact of electricity shutoffs extends beyond immediate discomfort, affecting productivity, food storage, and the ability to work remotely for those reliant on electronic devices, while rising electricity prices further strain household budgets. Socially, the inability to cool homes and maintain basic comforts strains community resilience and exacerbates inequalities.
Policy and Community Responses
In response to these challenges, policymakers and community organizations advocate for measures to prevent electricity shutoffs during heatwaves. Proposed solutions include extending moratoriums on shutoffs, informed by lessons from COVID-19 energy insecurity measures, implementing flexible payment plans, providing financial assistance to at-risk households, and enhancing communication about available resources.
Public Awareness and Preparedness
Raising public awareness about energy conservation during peak hours and promoting strategies to stay cool without overreliance on air conditioning are crucial steps towards mitigating electricity demand. Encouraging energy-efficient practices and investing in renewable energy sources also contribute to long-term resilience against climate-driven energy challenges.
Collaborative Efforts
Collaboration between government agencies, utilities, nonprofits, and community groups is essential in developing comprehensive strategies to safeguard vulnerable populations during heatwaves, especially when systems like the Texas power grid face renewed stress during prolonged heatwaves. By pooling resources and expertise, stakeholders can better coordinate emergency response efforts, distribute cooling centers, and ensure timely assistance to those in need.
Technology and Innovation
Advancements in smart grid technology and decentralized energy solutions offer promising avenues for enhancing grid resilience and minimizing disruptions during extreme weather events. These innovations enable more efficient energy management, demand response programs, and proactive monitoring of grid stability, though some utilities face summer supply-chain constraints that delay deployments.
Conclusion
As summer heatwaves become more frequent and severe, the risk of electricity shutoffs underscores the urgent need for proactive measures to protect vulnerable communities. By prioritizing equity, sustainability, and resilience in energy policy and practice, stakeholders can work towards ensuring reliable access to electricity, particularly during times of heightened climate vulnerability. Addressing these challenges requires collective action and a commitment to fostering inclusive and sustainable solutions that prioritize human well-being amid changing climate realities.
Pickering Nuclear Alert Error prompts Ontario investigation into the Alert Ready emergency alert system, Pelmorex safeguards, and public response at Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, including potassium iodide orders and geo-targeted notification issues.
Key Points
A mistaken Ontario emergency alert about the Pickering plant, now under probe for human error and system safeguards.
✅ Investigation led by Emergency Management Ontario
✅ Alert Ready and Pelmorex safeguards under review
✅ KI pill demand surged; geo-targeting questioned
A number of questions still remain a week after an emergency alert was mistakenly sent out to people across Ontario warning of an unspecified incident at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station.
The province’s solicitor general has stepped in and says an investigation into the incident should be completed fairly quickly according to the minister.
However, the nuclear scare has still left residents on edge with tens of thousands of people ordering potassium iodide, or KI, pills that protect the body from radioactive elements in the days following the incident.
Here’s what we know and still don’t know about the mistaken Pickering nuclear plant alert:
Who sent the alert?
According to the Alert Ready Emergency Alert System website, the agency works with several federal, provincial and territorial emergency management officials, Environment and Climate Change Canada and Pelmorex, a broadcasting industry and wireless service provider, to send the alerts.
Martin Belanger, the director of public alerting for Pelmorex, a company that operates the alert system, said there are a number of safeguards built in, including having two separate platforms for training and live alerts.
"The software has some steps and some features built in to minimize that risk and to make sure that users will be able to know whether or not they're sending an alert through the... training platform or whether they're accessing the live system in the case of a real emergency," he said.
Only authorized users have access to the system and the province manages that, Belanger said. Once in the live system, features make the user aware of which platform they are using, with various prompts and messages requiring the user's confirmation. There is a final step that also requires the user to confirm their intent of issuing an alert to cellphones, radio and TVs, Belanger said.
Last Sunday, a follow-up alert was sent to cellphones nearly two hours after the original notification, and during separate service disruptions such as a power outage in London residents also sought timely information.
What has the investigation revealed?
It’s still unclear as to how exactly the alert was sent in error, but Solicitor General Sylvia Jones has tapped the Chief of Emergency Management Ontario to investigate.
"It's very important for me, for the people of Ontario, to know exactly what happened on Sunday morning," Jones said.
Jones said initial observations suggest human error was responsible for the alert that was sent out during routine tests of the emergency alert.
“I want to know what happened and equally important, I want some recommendations on insurances and changes we can make to the system to make sure it doesn't happen again,” Jones said.
Jones said she expects the results of the probe to be made public.
Can you unsubscribe from emergency alerts?
It’s not possible to opt out of receiving the alerts, according to the Alert Ready Emergency Alert System website, and Ontario utilities warn about scams to help customers distinguish official notices.
“Given the importance of warning Canadians of imminent threats to the safety of life and property, the CRTC requires wireless service providers to distribute alerts on all compatible wireless devices connected to an LTE network in the target area,” the website reads.
The agency explains that unlike radio and TV broadcasting, the wireless public alerting system is geo-targeted and is specific to the a “limited area of coverage”, and examples like an Alberta grid alert have highlighted how jurisdictions tailor notices for their systems.
“As a result, if an emergency alert reaches your wireless device, you are located in an area where there is an imminent danger.”
The Pickering alert, however, was received by people from as far as Ottawa to Windsor.
Is the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station closing?
The Pickering nuclear plant has been operating since 1971, and had been scheduled to be decommissioned this year, but the former Liberal government -- and the current Progressive Conservative government -- committed to keeping it open until 2024. Decommissioning is now set to start in 2028.
It operates six CANDU reactors, and in contingency planning operators have considered locking down key staff to maintain reliability, generates 14 per cent of Ontario's electricity and is responsible for 4,500 jobs across the region, according to OPG, while utilities such as Hydro One's relief programs have supported customers during broader crises.
What should I do if I receive an emergency alert?
Alert Ready says that if you received an alert on your wireless device it’s important to take action “safely”.
“Stop what you are doing when it is safe to do so and read the emergency alert,” the agency says on their website.
“Alerting authorities will include within the emergency alert the information you need and guidance for any action you are required to take, and insights from U.S. grid pandemic response underscore how critical infrastructure plans intersect with public safety.”
“This could include but is not limited to: limit unnecessary travel, evacuate the areas, seek shelter, etc.”
The wording of last Sunday's alert caused much initial confusion, warning residents within 10 kilometres of the plant of "an incident," though there was no "abnormal" release of radioactivity and residents didn't need to take protective steps, but emergency crews were responding.
“In the event of a real emergency, the wording would be different,” Jones said.
California income-based utility charges face bipartisan pushback as the PUC weighs fixed fees for PG&E, SDG&E, and Southern California Edison, reshaping rate design, electricity affordability, energy equity, and privacy amid proposed per-kWh reductions.
Key Points
PUC-approved fixed fees tied to household income for PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE, offset by lower per-kWh rates.
✅ Critics warn admin, privacy, legal risks and higher bills for savers
✅ Backers say lower-income pay less; kWh rates cut ~33% in PG&E area
Efforts are being made across California's political landscape to derail a legislative initiative that introduced income-based utility charges for customers of Southern California Edison and other major utilities.
Legislators from both the Democratic and Republican parties have proposed bills aimed at nullifying the 2022 legislation that established a sliding scale for utility charges based on customer income, a decision made in a late-hour session and subsequently endorsed by Governor Gavin Newsom.
The plan, pending final approval from the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) — all of whose current members were appointed by Governor Newsom — would enable utilities like Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, and PG&E to apply new income-based charges as early as this July.
Among the state legislators pushing back against the income-based charge scheme are Democrats Jacqui Irwin and Marc Berman, along with Republicans Janet Nguyen, Kelly Seyarto, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Scott Wilk, Brian Dahle, Shannon Grove, and Roger Niello.
A cadre of specialists, including economist Ahmad Faruqui who has advised all three utilities implicated in the fee proposal, have outlined several concerns regarding the PUC's pending decision.
Faruqui and his colleagues argue that the proposed charges are excessively high in comparison to national standards, reflecting soaring electricity prices across the state, potentially leading to administrative challenges, legal disputes, and negative unintended outcomes, such as penalizing energy-conservative consumers.
Advocates for the income-based fee model, including The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and the National Resources Defense Council, argue it would result in higher charges for wealthier consumers and reduced fees for those with lower incomes. They also believe that the utilities plan to decrease per kilowatt-hour rates as part of a broader rate structure review to balance out the new fees.
However, even supporters like TURN and the Natural Resources Defense Council acknowledge that the income-based fee model is not a comprehensive solution to making soaring electricity bills more affordable.
If implemented, California would have the highest income-based utility fees in the country, with averages far surpassing the national average of $11.15, as reported by EQ Research:
Southern California Edison would charge $51.
San Diego Gas & Electric would levy $73.31.
PG&E would set fees at $50.92.
The proposal has raised concerns among state legislators about the additional financial burden on Californians already struggling with high electricity costs.
Critics highlight several practical challenges, including the PUC's task of assessing customers' income levels, a process fraught with privacy concerns, potential errors, and constitutional questions regarding access to tax information.
Economists have pointed out further complications, such as the difficulty in accurately assessing incomes for out-of-state property owners and the variability of customers' incomes over time.
The proposed income-based charges would differ by income bracket within the PG&E service area, for example, with lower-income households facing lower fixed charges and higher-income households facing higher charges, alongside a proposed 33% reduction in electricity rates to help mitigate the fixed charge impact.
Yet, the economists warn that most customers, particularly low-usage customers, could end up paying more, essentially rewarding higher consumption and penalizing efficiency.
This legislative approach, they caution, could inadvertently increase costs for moderate users across all income brackets, a sign of major changes to electric bills that could emerge, challenging the very goals it aims to achieve by promoting energy inefficiency.
Labor National Electricity Market Reform aims to rebalance NEM rules, support a fair-dinkum clean energy target, enable renewable zones, bolster storage and grid reliability, empower households, and unlock CEFC investment via the Finkel review.
Key Points
Labor's plan to overhaul NEM rules for households, clean energy targets, renewable zones, storage, and CEFC investment.
✅ Revises NEM rules to curb big generators' market power
✅ Backs a clean energy target informed by the Finkel review
✅ Expands renewable zones, storage, and CEFC finance
Australia's Labor leader Bill Shorten has called for significant changes to the rules governing the national electricity market, saying they are biased in favour of big energy generators, leaving households worse off even with measures like a WA electricity bill credit in place.
He said the national electricity market (NEM) rules are designed to help the big companies recoup the money they spent on purchasing government assets, a dynamic echoed in debates like a Calgary market overhaul dispute unfolding in Canada, rather than encourage households to generate their own power, and they need to change faster to adapt to consumer needs.
His comments hint at a possible overhaul of the NEM’s governance structure under a future Labor government, because the current rule-making process is too cumbersome and slow, with suggested rules changes taking years to be introduced.
Daniel Andrews defends claims that civil liberties a 'luxury' in fight against terrorism
Labor had promoted a similar idea in the lead-up to the 2016 election, with its call for an electricity modernization review, but now the Finkel review has been released it would be used to guide such a review.
In a speech to the Australian Financial Review’s National Energy Summit in Sydney on Monday, Shorten recommitted Labor to negotiating a “fair-dinkum” clean energy target with the Turnbull government, amid modelling that a strong clean energy target can lower electricity prices, saying “it’s time to put away the weapons of the climate change wars” and work together to find a way forward.
He said the media and business can all share the blame for Australia’s lost decade of energy policy development, with examples abroad showing how leadership steers change, such as in Alberta where Kenney's influence on power policy has been pronounced, but “we need to stop spoiling for a fight and start seeking a solution”.
“The scare campaigns and hyper-partisanship that got Australia into this mess, will not get us out of it,” he will say.
“That’s why, a bit over four months ago, before the chief scientist released his report, I wrote to the prime minister offering an olive branch.
“I said Labor was prepared to move from our preferred position of an emissions intensity scheme and negotiate a fair-dinkum clean energy target.
“That offer was greeted with some cynicism in the media. But let me be crystal clear – I made that offer in good faith, and that offer still stands.”
Shorten said Australia needs to resolve the current “gas crisis” and do more to drive investment in renewable energy that delivers more reliable electricity, a priority underscored by the IEA's warning that falling global energy investment risks shortages, and if Labor wins the next election it will organise Australia into a series of renewable energy zones – as recommended by the chief scientist, Alan Finkel – that identify wind, solar, pumped hydro and geothermal resources, and connect them to the existing network.
“These zones would be based on both existing generation and storage in the area – and the potential for future development,” he said.
Australia's politics only barrier to clean energy system, report finds
“Identifying these zones – from eastern Queensland, north-east New South Wales, west Victoria, the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia and the entire state of Tasmania – will also plant a flag for investors – signalling future sites for job-creating projects.”
Shorten also said Labor will free upthe Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in more generation and more storage.
“Under Labor, the return benchmark for the CEFC was set at the weighted average of the Australian government bond rate.
“Under this government, it was initially increased to the weighted average plus 4% to 5% and is now set at the average plus 3% to 4%.
“Setting the return benchmark too high defeats the driving purpose of the CEFC and it holds back the crucial investment Australia needs – right now – in new generation and storage.
“This is why a Labor government would restore the original benchmark return of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, to invest in more generation, more storage and more jobs.”
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.
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
