The sun was shining, the wind was gentle, and the water calm as a boatload of visitors to Kingston, guests of budding offshore wind developer Trillium Power, embarked on a three-hour tour of Lake Ontario.
The cruise was timed to coincide with a global wind power conference at St. Lawrence College.
Trillium's goal was simple: Show people, rather than just tell, how much stronger and consistent the wind is when venturing offshore.
About 30 minutes into the ride the mission was accomplished. What was a relatively smooth cruise became a stomach-churning experience as the wind-battered Catamaran, big enough to hold 180 people, began shifting back and forth in the water. Staff ran to keep bottles of wine from smashing on to the floor, while guests were urged to stay seated.
"The wind here is three times more powerful," said John Kourtoff, chief executive of Trillium, as he compared the potential wind energy from his project to existing onshore wind farms scattered around southern Ontario.
Kourtoff wants to build a 750-megawatt offshore wind farm in these waters, about 15 kilometres off the shore of Prince Edward County. That works out to about 150 wind turbines, seen as specks from the shoreline. And there's potential to double that.
Earlier in June, he announced the creation of Tai Wind, a consortium of North American offshore wind developers who hope, by combining their collective needs, to attract a turbine manufacturer to Ontario.
Already, Germany's Multibrid is seriously considering the invitation and, sources say, has begun high-level discussions between its executives and Ontario government officials.
Multibrid's interest is understandable. A recent report from energy consultancy Helimax concluded there were 64 sites on the Ontario side of the Great Lakes representing up to 34,500 megawatts of offshore wind capacity. This means the Trillium project is just scratching the surface.
Just recently, Toronto Hydro said it was renewing its efforts to establish an 80-turbine offshore wind farm near the Scarborough Bluffs.
"Offshore wind will be a driver of growth for the wind industry in the years to come," concluded investment firm Kyoto Planet Asset Management in a research report.
Also understandable is the government's interest. Embracing offshore wind is more than just adding more renewable energy to the grid, it could form the basis of a new "green" industrial strategy aimed at creating green-collar jobs. Multibrid is potentially the seed for that strategy, as it would need to develop a supply chain to support its Ontario growth plan. More than that, it sees Ontario as a manufacturing hub as it seeks to expand sales across North America and beyond.
It's welcome news at a time when production lines and plants are being shut down at Ontario automotive manufacturers. The idea makes so much sense that some unlikely alliances are being formed. When Trillium announced the Tai Wind consortium earlier this month, representatives from environmental groups WWF Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation shared the stage with the Canadian Auto Workers union, which fully backs the consortium's goals.
Natural Resources Minister Donna Cansfield told the Star that Ontario is "open for business" when it comes to offshore wind. George Smitherman, now minister of energy and infrastructure, wanted so much to express his support for wind-industry growth in Ontario that just days after his appointment he made an unscheduled speech at the Kingston wind conference.
There's a sense of urgency, and a recognition that if Ontario doesn't act on the opportunity, other jurisdictions will.
But a big question remains: How much does offshore wind cost?
The Ontario Power Authority, the government agency that effectively determines which large power projects live or die, says offshore wind costs too much to be considered in its 20-year power system plan. It acknowledges that the technology provides more power than onshore projects, but not enough to justify the higher cost of building offshore wind farms.
"It should be borne in mind that there is currently no experience in Ontario with offshore wind resources, and it may be that additional information may become available over time that would justify further review of this issue," the power authority concluded in a recent amendment to its 20-year plan.
Herein lies a classic chicken-and-egg dilemma. How can the province get a true sense of development costs without forging ahead on at least one project?
We can point to ocean-based offshore projects in Europe and make comparisons, but there are major differences to consider that may work in Ontario's favour. For one, planting a big wind turbine in relatively shallow and calm lake waters would seem to be an advantage in terms of costs. And since we're talking fresh water, there's no risk of salt degrading the mechanical performance of turbines. Also important to consider is the degree to which local manufacturing could reduce turbine and component costs.
It's unclear whether the power authority has taken this into account. Nor has the agency considered larger economic considerations, such as job creation. Technically, it doesn't have that mandate. It exists to get what it perceives to be the cheapest, most reliable power it can for consumers and industry. Power authority executives, mostly former Ontario Hydro engineers who are smart and well intentioned, aren't naturally inclined to include wind, solar and other intermittent sources of renewable energy in their big-picture plans. They reluctantly do so under direction from the government.
The power authority, said one cruise guest, "has its hands full with nuclear".
Clearly, the government has some strategic decisions to make. Sooner, it would appear, than later.
California clean electricity accelerates with renewables as solar and wind surge, battery storage strengthens grid resilience, natural gas declines, and coal fades, advancing SB 100 targets, carbon neutrality goals, and affordable, reliable power statewide.
Key Points
California clean electricity is the state's transition to renewable, zero-carbon power, scaling solar, wind and storage.
✅ Solar generation up nearly 20x since 2012
✅ Natural gas power down 20%; coal nearly phased out
✅ Battery storage shifts daytime surplus to evening demand
Data from the California Energy Commission (CEC) highlight California’s continued progress toward building a more resilient grid, achieving 100 percent clean electricity and meeting the state’s carbon neutrality goals.
Analysis of the state’s Total System Electric Generation report shows how California’s power mix has changed over the last decade. Since 2012:
Solar generation increased nearly twentyfold from 2,609 gigawatt-hours (GWh) to 48,950 GWh.
In addition to total utility generation, rooftop solar increased by 10 times generating 24,309 GWh of clean power in 2022. The state’s expanding fleet of battery storage resources also help support the grid by charging during the day using excess renewable power for use in the evening.
“This latest report card showing how solar energy boomed as natural gas powered electricity experienced a steady 20 percent decline over the last decade is encouraging,” said CEC Vice Chair Siva Gunda. “Even as climate impacts become increasingly severe, California remains committed to transitioning away from polluting fossil fuels and delivering on the promise to build a future power grid that is clean, reliable and affordable.”
Senate Bill 100 (2018) requires 100 percent of California’s electric retail sales be supplied by renewable and zero-carbon energy sources by 2045. To keep the state on track, last year Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 1020, establishing interim targets of 90 percent clean electricity by 2035 and 95 percent by 2040.
The state monitors progress through the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), which tracks the power mix of retail sales, and regional peers such as Nevada's RPS progress offer useful comparison. The latest data show that in 2021 more than 37 percent of the state’s electricity came from RPS-eligible sources such as solar and wind, an increase of 2.7 percent compared to 2020. When combined with other sources of zero-carbon energy such as large hydroelectric generation and nuclear, nearly 59 percent of the state’s retail electricity sales came from nonfossil fuel sources.
The total system electric generation report is based on electric generation from all in-state power plants rated 1 megawatt (MW) or larger and imported utility-scale power generation. It reflects the percentage of a specific resource compared to all power generation, not just retail sales. The total system electric generation report accounts for energy used for water conveyance and pumping, transmission and distribution losses and other uses not captured under RPS.
✅ Vegetation management reduces storm-related line contact
✅ Selective undergrounding where risk and cost justify
The increasing intensity of storms that lead to massive power outages highlights the need for Canada’s electrical utilities to be more robust and innovative, climate change scientists say.
“We need to plan to be more resilient in the face of the increasing chances of these events occurring,” University of New Brunswick climate change scientist Louise Comeau said in a recent interview.
The East Coast was walloped this week by the third storm in as many days, with high winds toppling trees and even part of a Halifax church steeple, underscoring the value of storm-season electrical safety tips for residents.
Significant weather events have consistently increased over the last five years, according to the Canadian Electricity Association (CEA), which has tracked such events since 2003.
#google#
Nearly a quarter of total outage hours nationally in 2016 – 22 per cent – were caused by two ice storms, a lightning storm, and the Fort McMurray fires, which the CEA said may or may not be classified as a climate event.
“It (climate change) is putting quite a lot of pressure on electricity companies coast to coast to coast to improve their processes and look for ways to strengthen their systems in the face of this evolving threat,” said Devin McCarthy, vice president of public affairs and U.S. policy for the CEA, which represents 40 utilities serving 14 million customers.
The 2016 figures – the most recent available – indicate the average Canadian customer experienced 3.1 outages and 5.66 hours of outage time.
McCarthy said electricity companies can’t just build their systems to withstand the worst storm they’d dealt with over the previous 30 years. They must prepare for worse, and address risks highlighted by Site C dam stability concerns as part of long-term planning.
“There needs to be a more forward looking approach, climate science led, that looks at what do we expect our system to be up against in the next 20, 30 or 50 years,” he said.
Toronto Hydro is either looking at or installing equipment with extreme weather in mind, Elias Lyberogiannis, the utility’s general manager of engineering, said in an email.
That includes stainless steel transformers that are more resistant to corrosion, and breakaway links for overhead service connections, which allow service wires to safely disconnect from poles and prevents damage to service masts.
Comeau said smaller grids, tied to electrical systems operated by larger utilities, often utilize renewable energy sources such as solar and wind as well as battery storage technology to power collections of buildings, homes, schools and hospitals.
“Capacity to do that means we are less vulnerable when the central systems break down,” Comeau said.
Nova Scotia Power recently announced an “intelligent feeder” pilot project, which involves the installation of Tesla Powerwall storage batteries in 10 homes in Elmsdale, N.S., and a large grid-sized battery at the local substation. The batteries are connected to an electrical line powered in part by nearby wind turbines.
The idea is to test the capability of providing customers with back-up power, while collecting data that will be useful for planning future energy needs.
Tony O’Hara, NB Power’s vice-president of engineering, said the utility, which recently sounded an alarm on copper theft, was in the late planning stages of a micro-grid for the western part of the province, and is also studying the use of large battery storage banks.
“Those things are coming, that will be an evolution over time for sure,” said O’Hara.
Some solutions may be simpler. Smaller utilities, like Nova Scotia Power, are focusing on strengthening overhead systems, mainly through vegetation management, while in Ontario, Hydro One and Alectra are making major investments to strengthen infrastructure in the Hamilton area.
“The number one cause of outages during storms, particularly those with high winds and heavy snow, is trees making contact with power lines,” said N.S. Power’s Tiffany Chase.
The company has an annual budget of $20 million for tree trimming and removal.
“But the reality is with overhead infrastructure, trees are going to cause damage no matter how robust the infrastructure is,” said Matt Drover, the utility’s director for regional operations.
“We are looking at things like battery storage and a variety of other reliability programs to help with that.”
NB Power also has an increased emphasis on tree trimming and removal, and now spends $14 million a year on it, up from $6 million prior to 2014.
O’Hara said the vegetation program has helped drive the average duration of power outages down since 2014 from about three hours to two hours and 45 minutes.
Some power cables are buried in both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, mostly in urban areas. But both utilities maintain it’s too expensive to bury entire systems – estimated at $1 million per kilometre by Nova Scotia Power.
The issue of burying more lines was top of mind in Toronto following a 2013 ice storm, but that’s city’s utility also rejected the idea of a large-scale underground system as too expensive – estimating the cost at around $15 billion, while Ontario customers have seen Hydro One delivery rates rise in recent adjustments.
“Having said that, it is prudent to do so for some installations depending on site specific conditions and the risks that exist,” Lyberogiannis said.
Comeau said lowering risks will both save money and disruption to people’s lives.
“We can’t just do what we used to do,” said Xuebin Zhang, a senior climate change scientist at Environment and Climate Change Canada.
“We have to build in management risk … this has to be a new norm.”
Germany's Coal Reliance reflects an energy crisis, soaring natural gas prices, and a nuclear phase-out, as Destatis data show higher coal-fired electricity despite growing wind and solar generation, impacting grid stability and emissions.
Key Points
Germany's coal reliance is more coal power due to gas spikes and a nuclear phase-out, despite wind and solar growth.
✅ Coal share near one-third of electricity, per Destatis
✅ Gas-fired output falls as prices soar after Russia's invasion
✅ Wind and solar rise; grid stability and recession risks persist
Germany is relying on highly-polluting coal for almost a third of its electricity, as the impact of government policies, reflecting an energy balancing act for the power sector, and the war in Ukraine leads producers in Europe’s largest economy to use less gas and nuclear energy.
In the first six months of the year, Germany generated 82.6 kWh of electricity from coal, up 17 per cent from the same period last year, according to data from Destatis, the national statistics office, published on Wednesday. The leap means almost one-third of German electricity generation now comes from coal-fired plants, up from 27 per cent last year. Production from natural gas, which has tripled in price to €235 per megawatt hour since Russia’s invasion in late February, fell 18 per cent to only 11.7 per cent of total generation.
Destatis said that the shift from gas to coal was sharper in the second quarter. Coal-fired electricity increased by an annual rate of 23 per cent in the three months to June, while electricity generation from natural gas fell 19 per cent.
The figures highlight the challenge facing European governments in meeting clean energy goals after the Kremlin announced this week that the Nordstream 1 pipeline that takes Russian gas to Germany would remain closed until Europe removed sanctions on the country’s oil.
Germany has been trying to reduce its reliance on coal, which releases almost twice as many emissions as gas and more than 60 times those of nuclear energy, according to estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, though grid expansion challenges have slowed renewable build-out in recent years.
Chancellor Olaf Scholz said the opposition CDU bore “complete responsibility” for the exit from coal and nuclear power that formed part of his predecessor Angela Merkel’s Energiewende policies, amid a continuing nuclear option debate in climate policy, which in turn raised reliance on Russian gas. At the beginning of this year, more than 50 per cent of Germany’s gas imports came from Russia, a figure that fell slightly over the opening half of 2022.
But CDU leader Friedrich Merz accused the government of “madness” over its decision to idle the country’s three remaining nuclear power stations from the end of this year, though officials have argued that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue in the short term.
Electricity generation from nuclear energy has already halved after three of the six nuclear power plants that were still in operation at the end of 2021 were closed during the first half of this year. Berlin said on Monday it would keep on standby two of its remaining three nuclear power stations, a move to extend nuclear power during the energy crisis, which were all due to close at the end of the year.
The German government has warned of the risk of electricity shortages this winter. “We cannot be sure that, in the event of grid bottlenecks in neighbouring countries, there will be enough power plants available to help stabilise our electricity grid in the short term,” said German economy minister Robert Habeck on Monday.
However Scholz said that, after raising gas storage levels to 86 per cent of capacity, Germany would “probably get through this winter, despite all the tension”.
One bright spot from the data was the increase in use of renewable energy, highlighting a recent renewables milestone in Germany. The proportion of electricity generated from wind power generation rose by 18 per cent to 25 per cent of all electricity generation, while solar energy production increased 20 per cent.
Ángel Talavera, head of Europe economics at the consultancy Oxford Economics, said that the success in moving away from gas towards other energy sources “means that the risks of hard energy rationing over the winter are less severe now, even with little to no Russian gas flows”.
However, economists still expect a recession in the eurozone’s largest economy, amid a deteriorating German economy outlook over the near term, as a large part of the impact comes via higher prices and because industries and households still rely on gas for heating.
Separate official data also published on Wednesday showed that German industrial production slid 0.3 per cent between June and July. Production at Germany’s most energy intensive industries fell almost 7 per cent in the five months after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
“The demand destruction caused by the surge in prices will still send the German economy into recession over the winter,” said Talavera.
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.
Courtyard by Marriott Lancaster Solar Array delivers 100% renewable electricity via photovoltaic panels at Greenfield Corporate Center, Pennsylvania, a High Hotels and Marriott sustainability initiative reducing grid demand and selling excess power for efficient operations.
Key Points
A $1.5M PV installation powering the 133-room hotel with 100% renewable electricity in Greenfield Center, Lancaster.
✅ 2,700 PV panels generate 1,239,000 kWh annually
✅ First Marriott in the US with 100% solar electricity
✅ $504,900 CFA grant; excess power sold to the utility
High Hotels Ltd., a hotel developer and operator, recently announced it is installing a $1.5 million solar array that will generate 100% of the electrical power required to operate one of its existing hotels in Greenfield Corporate Center. The completed installation will make the 133-room Courtyard by Marriott-Lancaster the first Marriott-branded hotel in the United States with 100% of its electricity needs generated from solar power. It is also believed to be the first solar array in the country installed for the sole purpose of generating 100% of the electricity needs of a hotel, mirroring how other firms are commissioning their first solar power plant to meet sustainability goals.
“This is an exciting approach to addressing our energy needs that aligns very well with High’s commitment to environmental stewardship,”
“We’ve been advancing many environmentally responsible practices across our hotel portfolio, including converting the interior and exterior lighting at the Lancaster Courtyard to LED, which will lower electricity demand by 15%,” said Russ Urban, president of High Hotels. “Installing solar is another important step in this progression, and we will look to apply lessons from this as we expand our portfolio of premium select-service hotels.”
The Lancaster-based hotel developer, owner and operator is working in partnership with Marriott International Inc. to realize this vision, in step with major brands announcing new clean energy projects across their portfolios.
The installation of more than 2,700 ballasted photovoltaic panels will fill an area more than two football fields in size. After evaluating several on-site and near-site alternatives, High Hotels decided to install the solar array on the roof of a nearby building in Greenfield Corporate Center. Using the existing roof saves more than three acres of open land and has additional aesthetic benefits, aligning with recommendations for solar farms under consideration by local planners. The solar array will produce 1,239,000 kWh of power for the hotel, which consumes 1,177,000 kWh. Any excess power will be sold to the utility, though affordable solar batteries are making on-site storage increasingly feasible.
High Hotels received a grant of $504,900 from the Commonwealth Financing Authority (CFA) through the Solar Energy Program to complete the project. An independent agency of the Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), the CFA is responsible for evaluating projects and awarding funds for a variety of economic development programs, including the Solar Energy Program and statewide initiatives like solar-power subscriptions that broaden access. The project will receive a solar renewable energy credit which will be conveyed to the CFA to provide the agency with more funds to offer grants in the future.
“This is a cutting-edge project that is exactly the kind we are looking for to promote the generation and use of solar energy,” said DCED Secretary Dennis Davin. “I am very pleased that the first Marriott in the US to receive 100% of its electric needs through renewable solar energy is located right here in Central Pennsylvania.” Secretary Davin also serves as chairman of the CFA’s board.
Panels for the solar array will be Q Cells manufactured by Hanwha Cells Co., Ltd., headquartered in Seoul, South Korea. Ephrata, Pa.-based Meadow Valley Electric Inc. will install the array in the second and third quarters of 2018 with commissioning targeted for September 2018.
UK Energy Price Cap drives household electricity bills and gas prices, as Ofgem adjusts unit rates amid natural gas shortages, Russia-Ukraine disruptions, inflation, recession risks, and limited storage; government support offers only short-term relief.
Key Points
The UK Energy Price Cap limits per-unit gas and electricity charges set by suppliers and adjusted by Ofgem.
✅ Reflects wholesale natural gas costs; varies quarterly
✅ Protects consumers from sudden electricity and heating bill spikes
✅ Does not cap total annual spend; usage still determines bills
The government organization that controls the cost of energy in Great Britain recently increased what is known as a price cap on household energy bills. The price cap is the highest amount that gas suppliers can charge for a unit of energy.
The new, higher cost has people concerned that they may not be able to pay for their gas and electricity this winter. Some might pay as much as $4,188 for energy next year. Earlier this year, the price cap was at $2,320, and a 16% decrease in bills is anticipated in April.
Why such a change?
Oil and gas prices around the world have been increasing since 2021 as economies started up again after the coronavirus pandemic. More business activities required more fuel.
Then, Russia invaded Ukraine in late February, creating a new energy crisis. Russia limited the amount of natural gas it sent to European countries that needed it to power factories, produce electricity and keep homes warm.
Some energy companies are charging more because they are worried that Russia might completely stop sending gas to European countries. And in Britain, prices are up because the country does not produce much gas or have a good way to store it. As a result, Britain must purchase gas often in a market where prices are high, and ministers have discussed ending the gas-electricity price link to ease bills.
Citibank, a U.S. financial company, believes the higher energy prices will cause inflation in Britain to reach 18 percent in 2023, while EU energy inflation has also been driven higher by energy costs this year. And the Bank of England says an economic slowdown known as a recession will start later this year.
Public health and private aid organizations worry that high energy prices will cause a “catastrophe” as Britons choose between keeping their homes warm and eating enough food.
What can government do?
As prices rise, the British government plans to give people between $450 and $1,400 to help pay for energy costs, while some British MPs push to further restrict the price charged for gas and electricity. But the help is seen by many as not enough.
If the government approves more money for fuel, it will probably not come until September, as the energy security bill moves toward becoming law. That is the time the Conservative Party will select a new leader to replace Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
The Labour Party says the government should increase the amount it provides for people to pay for fuel by raising taxes on energy companies. However, the two politicians who are trying to become the next Prime Minister do not seem to support that idea.
Giovanna Speciale leads an organization called the Southeast London Community Energy group. It helps people pay their bills. She said the money will help but it is only a short-term solution to a bigger problem with Britain’s energy system. Because the system is privately run, she said, “there’s very little that the government can do to intervene in this.”
Other European countries are seeing higher energy costs, but not as high, and at the EU level, gas price cap strategies have been outlined to tackle volatility. In France, gas prices are capped at 2021 levels. In Germany, prices are up by 38 percent since last year. However, the government is reducing some taxes, which will make it easier for the average person to buy gas. In Italy, prices are going up, but the government recently approved over $8 billion to help people pay their energy bills.
