The Texas electric market is learning that while the wind may be free, integrating wind generation with coal, nuclear and natural gas-fired power plants is not.
Wind turbines have been sprouting across the West Texas landscape at a rapid clip, advancing Texas to the top U.S. state in terms of wind energy capacity, according to the American Wind Energy Association which is holding its national convention in Houston beginning June 1.
Texas has 5,300 megawatts of installed wind generation, about one-fourth of the U.S. wind total.
State regulators welcomed wind farms into Texas' unfettered wholesale power market through a special process to designate the best wind-power production zones and to accelerate construction of power lines - costing from $3 billion to $6 billion - needed to link those remote areas to more populated areas of the state.
However, problems that surfaced in the Texas wholesale market as wind's influence reached a critical level this spring should be a warning for the rest of the nation, said Lawrence Makovich, vice president and senior power adviser at Cambridge Energy Research Associates.
"Wind is not a direct substitute for conventional power supply," said Makovich.
Wind farms only generate electricity about 35 percent of the time and cannot be turned on and off to predictably supply power when consumers turn on the lights, Makovich said. Because of its intermittent nature, wind is 30 percent to 40 percent more expensive than traditional power plants which must be ready to run when there is no wind.
The Texas grid operator has struggled in recent months with reliability issues and unexpected price volatility related to wind power that has led to the default of two small power retailers. Some market participants are beginning to question the need and cost associated with rising levels of wind.
Wind is attractive if added in moderation, Makovich said.
"It has a desirable environmental profile, but you want to incorporate a smart amount of wind," he said. "If you add too much, you may impose too much additional cost."
A U.S. Department of Energy study issued this month said wind energy could provide 20 percent of the nation's electric supply by 2030, but it identified equipment supply, siting and transmission as limitations.
As states have rushed to require utilities to add renewable power, such as wind generation, to reduce carbon dioxide emissions blamed for global warming, demand for turbines has outstripped supply, Makovich said.
"Instead of having the cost of wind decline as in years past, the demand from all the states has created a shortage," he said. "The cost of wind is increasing as fast as anything you can find in the power sector."
States need to pace the expansion of wind generation to avoid creating excess costs for consumers, Makovich said.
"We have not coordinated and paced the demand for wind power to encourage scale and reduce costs," he said.
Texas market participants are working to address the mostly unforeseen problems that came with expanding wind output, and regulators will soon determine how many power lines to build to serve the wind zones.
Dan L. Jones, an independent watchdog of the Texas wholesale market, is currently looking into extreme price spikes for real-time energy, caused in part by the wind's expanding influence. "Any discussion we have is going to include the wind because it has such a significant presence," Jones said.
"There is room for more wind, but we don't know what the upper limit is," said Kim Casey, executive vice president at Houston-based Fulcrum Energy. If natural gas prices remain at current high levels, Texas will benefit from the wind, she said.
"There is a premium to wind that we need to face up to," said Makovich. "We can add some wind to get the environmental benefit, but we need to be careful. If we add too much, too fast, it will increase prices much more than you need to."
UK Renewables Surpass Nuclear Milestone as wind farms and solar panels outpace atomic output, cutting greenhouse gas emissions. BEIS data show low-carbon power generation rising while onshore wind subsidies and auction timelines face policy debate.
Key Points
It is the quarter when UK wind and solar generated more electricity than nuclear, signaling cleaner, low-carbon growth.
✅ BEIS reports wind and solar at 18.33 TWh vs nuclear 16.69 TWh
✅ Energy sector emissions fell 8% as coal use dropped
✅ Calls grow to reopen onshore wind support via CFD auctions
Wind farms and solar panels, with wind leading the power mix during key periods, produced more electricity than the UK’s eight nuclear power stations for the first time at the end of last year, official figures show.
Britain’s greenhouse gas emissions also continued to fall, dropping 3% in 2017, as coal use fell and the use of renewables climbed, though low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 according to later data.
Energy experienced the biggest drop in emissions of any UK sector, of 8%, while pollution from transport and businesses stayed flat.
Energy industry chiefs said the figures showed that the government should rethink its ban on onshore wind subsidies, a move that ministers have hinted could happen soon.
Lawrence Slade, chief executive of the big six lobby group Energy UK, said: “We need to keep up the pace ... by ensuring that the lowest cost renewables are no longer excluded from the market.”
Across the whole year, low-carbon sources of power – wind, solar, biomass and nuclear – provided a record 50.4% of electricity, up from 45.7% in 2016, when wind beat coal for the first time.
But in the fourth quarter of 2017, high wind speeds, new renewables installations and lower nuclear output saw wind and solar becoming the second biggest source of power for the first time.
Wind and solar generated 18.33 terawatt hours (TWh), with nuclear on 16.69TWh, and the UK later set a new record for wind power during 2019, the figures published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show.
But renewables still have a long way to go to catch up with gas, the UK’s top source of electricity at 36.12TWh, which saw its share of generation fall slightly, though at times wind became the main source as capacity expanded.
Greenpeace said the figures showed the government should capitalise on its lead in renewables and “stop wasting time and money propping up nuclear power”.
Horizon Nuclear Power, a subsidiary of the Japanese conglomerate Hitachi, is in talks with Whitehall officials for a financial support package from the government, which it says it needs by midsummer.
By contrast, large-scale solar and onshore wind projects are not eligible for support, after the Conservative government cut subsidies in 2015.
However the energy minister, Claire Perry, recently told House Magazine that “we will have another auction that brings forward wind and solar, we just haven’t yet said when”.
US Offshore Wind Lease Sales signal soaring renewable energy growth, drawing oil and gas developers, requiring BOEM auctions, seismic surveying, transmission planning, with $70B investment, 8 GW milestones, and substantial job creation in coastal communities.
Key Points
BOEM-run auctions granting areas for offshore wind, spurring projects, investment, and jobs in federal waters.
✅ $70B investment needed by 2030 to meet current demand
Recent offshore lease sales demonstrate that not only has offshore wind arrived in the U.S., but it is clearly set to soar, as forecasts point to a $1 trillion global market in the coming decades. The level of participation today, especially from seasoned offshore oil and gas developers, exemplifies that the offshore industry is an advocate for the 'all of the above' energy portfolio.
Offshore wind could generate 160,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs, with 40,000 new U.S. jobs with the first 8 gigawatts of production, while broader forecasts see a quarter-million U.S. wind jobs within four years.
In fact, a recent report from the Special Initiative on Offshore Wind (SIOW), said that offshore wind investment in U.S. waters will require $70 billion by 2030 just based on current demand, and the UK's rapid scale-up offers a relevant benchmark.
Maintaining this tremendous level of interest from offshore wind developers requires a reliable inventory of regularly scheduled offshore wind sales and the ability to develop those resources. Coastal communities and extreme environmental groups opposing seismic surveying and the issuance of incidental harassment authorizations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act may literally take the wind out of these sales. Just as it is for offshore oil and gas development, seismic surveying is vital for offshore wind development, specifically in the siting of wind turbines and transmission corridors.
Unfortunately, a long-term pipeline of wind lease sales does not currently exist. In fact, with the exception of a sale proposed offshore New York offshore wind or potentially California in 2020, there aren't any future lease sales scheduled, leaving nothing upon which developers can plan future investments and prompting questions about when 1 GW will be on the grid nationwide.
NOIA is dedicated to working with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and coastal communities, consumers, energy producers and other stakeholders, drawing on U.K. wind lessons where applicable, in working through these challenges to make offshore wind a reality for millions of Americans.
BC Hydro COVID-19 Relief Fund enables small businesses to waive electricity bills for commercial properties during the pandemic, offering credits, rate support, and applications for eligible customers forced to temporarily close.
Key Points
A program that lets eligible small businesses waive up to three months of BC Hydro bills during COVID-19 closures.
✅ Eligible small general service BC Hydro accounts
✅ Up to 3 months of waived electricity charges
✅ Must be temporarily closed due to the pandemic
Businesses are taking advantage of a BC Hydro relief fund that allows electricity bills for commercial properties to be waived during the COVID-19 pandemic.
More than 3,000 applications have already been filed since the program launched on Wednesday, allowing commercial properties forced to shutter during the crisis to waive the expense for up to three months, while Ontario rate reductions are taking effect for businesses under separate measures.
“To be eligible for the COVID-19 Relief Fund, business customers must be on BC Hydro’s small general service rate and have temporarily closed or ceased operation due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” BC Hydro said in a statement. “BC Hydro estimates that around 40,000 small businesses in the province will be eligible for the program.”
The program builds off a similar initiative BC Hydro launched last week for residential customers who have lost employment or income because of COVID-19, and parallels Ontario's subsidized hydro plan introduced to support ratepayers. So far, 57,000 B.C. residents have applied for the relief fund, which amounts to an estimated $16 million in credits, amid scrutiny over deferred BC Hydro operating costs reported by the auditor general.
Electricity use across B.C. has plummeted since the outbreak began.
According to BC Hydro, daily consumption has fallen 13% in the first two weeks of April, aligning with electricity demand down 10% reports, compared to the three-year average for the same time period.
Electricity use has fallen 30% for recreation facilities, 29% in the restaurant sector and 27% in hotels, while industry groups such as Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters have supported steps to reduce prices.
For more information about the COVID-19 Relief Fund and advice on avoiding BC Hydro scam attempts, go to bchydro.com/covid19relief.
Ukraine Nuclear Plant Ownership Proposal outlines U.S. management of Ukrainian reactors amid the Russia-Ukraine war, citing nuclear safety, energy security, and IAEA oversight; Kyiv rejects ownership transfer, especially regarding Zaporizhzhia under Russian control.
Key Points
U.S. control of Ukraine's nuclear plants for safety; Kyiv rejects transfer, citing sovereignty risks at Zaporizhzhia.
✅ U.S. proposal to manage Ukraine's reactors amid war
✅ Kyiv refuses ownership transfer; open to investment
✅ Zaporizhzhia under Russian control raises safety risks
In the midst of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed a controversial idea: Ukraine should give its nuclear power plants to the United States for safekeeping and management. This suggestion came during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wherein Trump expressed the belief that American ownership of these nuclear plants could offer them the best protection amid the ongoing war. But Kyiv, while open to foreign support, has firmly rejected the idea of transferring ownership, especially as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant remains under Russian occupation.
Ukraine’s nuclear energy infrastructure has always been a vital component of its power generation. Before the war, the country’s four nuclear plants supplied nearly half of its electricity. As Russia's military forces target Ukraine's energy infrastructure, including power plants and coal mines, international watchdogs like the IAEA have warned of nuclear risks as these nuclear facilities have become crucial to maintaining the nation’s energy stability. The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, has attracted international concern due to its size and the ongoing threat of a potential nuclear disaster.
Trump’s Proposal and Ukraine’s Response
Trump’s proposal of U.S. ownership came as a response to the ongoing threats posed by Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia plant. Trump argued that the U.S., with its expertise in running nuclear power plants, could safeguard these facilities from further damage and potential nuclear accidents. However, Zelenskyy quickly clarified that the discussion was only focused on the Zaporizhzhia plant, which is currently under Russian control. The Ukrainian president emphasized that Kyiv would not entertain the idea of permanently transferring ownership of its nuclear plants, even though they would welcome investment in their restoration and modernization, particularly after the war.
The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant has been a focal point of geopolitical tensions since Russia's occupation in 2022. Despite being in "cold shutdown" to prevent further risk of explosions, the facility remains a major concern due to its potential to cause a nuclear disaster. Ukrainian officials, along with international observers, have raised alarm about the safety risks posed by the plant, including mines at Zaporizhzhia reported by UN watchdogs, which is situated in a war zone and under the control of Russian forces who are reportedly neglecting proper safety protocols.
The Fear of a Nuclear Provocation
Ukrainians have expressed concerns that Trump’s proposal could embolden Russia to escalate tensions further, even as a potential agreement on power-plant attacks has been discussed by some parties. Some fear that any attempt to reclaim the plant by Ukraine could trigger a Russian provocation, including a deliberate attack on the plant, which would have catastrophic consequences for both Ukraine and the broader region. The analogy is drawn with the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, which Ukraine accuses Russia of sabotaging, an act that severely disrupted water supplies to the Zaporizhzhia plant. Ukrainian military officials, including Ihor Romanenko, a former deputy head of Ukraine’s armed forces, warned that Trump’s suggestion might be an exploitation of Ukraine’s vulnerable position in the ongoing war.
Despite these fears, there are some voices within Ukraine, including former employees of the Zaporizhzhia plant, who believe that a deliberate attack by Russian forces is unlikely. They argue that the Russian military needs the plant in functioning condition for future negotiations, with Russia building new power lines to reactivate the site as part of that calculus, and any damage could reduce its value in such exchanges. However, the possibility of Russian negligence or mismanagement remains a significant risk.
The Strategic Role of Ukraine's Nuclear Plants
Ukraine's nuclear plants were a cornerstone of the country’s energy sector long before the conflict began. In recent years, as Ukraine lost access to coal resources in the Donbas region due to Russian occupation, nuclear power became even more vital, alongside a growing focus on wind power to improve resilience. The country’s reliance on these plants grew as Russia launched a sustained campaign to destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including attacks on nuclear power stations.
The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, holds strategic importance not only due to its size but also because of its location in southeastern Ukraine, an area that has been at the heart of the conflict. Despite being in Russian hands, the plant’s reactors have been safely shut down, reducing the immediate risk of a nuclear explosion. However, the plant’s future remains uncertain, as Russia’s long-term control over it could disrupt Ukraine’s energy security for years to come.
Wider Concerns About Aging Nuclear Infrastructure
Beyond the geopolitical tensions, there are broader concerns about the aging infrastructure of Ukraine's nuclear power plants. International watchdogs, including the environmentalist group Bankwatch, have criticized these facilities as “zombie reactors” due to their outdated designs and safety risks. Experts have called for Ukraine to decommission some of these reactors, fearing that they are increasingly unsafe, especially in the context of a war.
However, Ukrainian officials, including Petro Kotin, head of Energoatom (Ukraine's state-owned nuclear energy company), argue that these reactors are still functional and critical to Ukraine's energy needs. The ongoing conflict, however, complicates efforts to modernize and secure these facilities, which are increasingly vulnerable to both physical damage and potential nuclear hazards.
The Global Implications
Trump's suggestion to take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has raised significant concerns on the international stage. Some fear that such a move could set a dangerous precedent for nuclear security and sovereignty. Others see it as an opportunistic proposal that exploits Ukraine's wartime vulnerability.
While the future of Ukraine's nuclear plants remains uncertain, one thing is clear: these facilities are now at the center of a geopolitical struggle that could have far-reaching consequences for the energy security of Europe and the world. The safety of these plants and their role in Ukraine's energy future will remain a critical issue as the war continues and as Ukraine navigates its relations with both the U.S. and Russia, with the grid even having resumed electricity exports at times.
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.
Airport City Solar Edmonton will deliver a 120-megawatt, 627-acre photovoltaic, utility-scale renewable energy project at EIA, creating jobs, attracting foreign investment, and supplying clean power to Fortis Alberta and airport distribution systems.
Key Points
A 120 MW, 627-acre photovoltaic solar farm at EIA supplying clean power to Fortis Alberta and airport systems.
✅ 120 MW utility-scale project over 627 acres at EIA
✅ Feeds Fortis Alberta and airport distribution networks
✅ Drives jobs, investment, and regional sustainability
A European-based company is proposing to build a solar farm bigger than 300 CFL football fields at Edmonton's international airport, aligning with Alberta's red-hot solar growth seen across the province.
Edmonton International Airport and Alpin Sun are working on an agreement that will see the company develop Airport City Solar, a 627-acre, 120-megawatt solar farm that reflects how renewable power developers combine resources for stronger projects on what is now a canola field on the west side of the airport lands.
The solar farm will be the largest at an airport anywhere in the world, EIA said in a news release Tuesday, in a region that also hosts the largest rooftop solar array at a local producer.
"It's a great opportunity to drive economic development as well as be better for the environment," Myron Keehn, vice-president, commercial development and air service at EIA, told CBC News, even as Alberta faces challenges with solar expansion that require careful planning.
"We're really excited that [Alpin Sun] has chosen Edmonton and the airport to do it. It's a great location. We've got lots of land, we're geographically located north, which is great for us, because it allows us to have great hours of sunlight.
"As everyone knows in Edmonton, you can golf early in the morning or golf late at night in the summertime here. And in wintertime it's great, because of the snow, and the reflective [sunlight] off the snow that creates power as well."
Airport official Myron Keehn says the field behind him will become home to the world's largest solar farm at an airport. (Scott Neufeld/CBC)
The project will "create jobs, provide sustainable solar power for our region and show our dedication to sustainability," Tom Ruth, EIA president and CEO, said in the news release, while complementing initiatives by Ermineskin First Nation to expand Indigenous participation in electricity generation.
Construction is expected to begin in early 2022, as new solar facilities in Alberta demonstrate lower costs than natural gas. The solar farm would be operational by the end of that year, the release said.
Alpin Sun says the project will bring in $169 million in foreign investment to the Edmonton metro region amid federal green electricity contracts that are boosting market certainty.
Power generated by Airport City Solar will feed into Fortis Alberta and airport distribution systems.
