U.S. demand for residential solar power installations is surging despite an economic recession, thanks to government financial incentives, some easing in credit availability, and increasing public recognition of its environmental benefits, industry executives said.
Companies represented at the PV America solar conference in Philadelphia said the volume of their installations as much as tripled in 2008 and they see further gains this year as more people recognize that they can cut their electricity bills by at least 15 percent with an array of solar panels installed on the roof of their homes.
Geogenix LLC, a New Jersey-based residential solar company with 20 employees, installed about 150 systems in the first six years of its existence until 2008, and expects to do about that number this year alone, said managing member Gaurav Naik. He predicted the company would install at least 300 systems in 2010 when it plans to expand into Pennsylvania and some surrounding states.
"There is unprecedented demand for residential solar systems," he said.
Faced with a cost of about $50,000 for installation of a 7-kilowatt system on a typical 2,500-square-foot house, a New Jersey homeowner can defray the expense with a $12,500 rebate from the state and a federal tax credit of $11,000, Naik said.
After the first year, the homeowner can also expect a refund check for about $3,200 from the local utility in return for installing the solar panels, Naik said. The owner can expect to save about $1,700 a year in electricity bills, and should recoup the initial investment within five to eight years, he said.
According to industry trade group the Solar Energy Industries Association, there was an overall 16 percent increase in solar capacity, including commercial installations, in 2008.
Jeffrey Wolfe, chief executive of Vermont-based installer groSolar, said the market has also been boosted by lower prices for solar panels due in part to an increase in the supply of the polysilicon, the raw material used for their construction.
Wolfe argued the industry is benefiting from a cultural change that is more accepting of the need to find alternatives to fossil fuels, in part because of last year's surge in gasoline prices to more than $4 a gallon.
"People have seen what energy prices can do, and they have come to the end of their rope in denying climate change," Wolfe said.
Companies are also getting creative in bringing the upfront costs of solar power down for customers. groSolar, for one, is providing financing to customers who are unable to front the $40,000-$50,000 price tag for a typical solar installation. Wolfe's company now operates a lease program requiring a down payment of $1,000 and then regular monthly payments for use of the system.
In California, Arizona and Oregon, SolarCity installs systems without any down payment from the customer, who then pays a lease fee which typically ranges from $25 to $60 a month, said David Arfin, vice president of customer financing. The company owns and maintains the system but the homeowner benefits from the reduced utility bills, he said.
Arfin said the company's business tripled in 2008, and it is hiring 100 new installers to help meet "massive" demand.
Naik of Geogenix said financing for solar installations has gotten easier for qualified borrowers since the first quarter of 2009. He cited one client with a high 740 credit score who needed to borrow $38,000 and secured a 10-year loan at prime plus 2 percent by working with a financial institution that had previously done business with the company.
Fukushima Hydrogen Energy System leverages a 10,000 kW H2 production hub for grid balancing, demand response, and renewable integration, delivering hydrogen supply across Tohoku while supporting storage, forecasting, and flexible power management.
Key Points
A 10,000 kW H2 project in Namie for grid balancing, renewable integration, and regional hydrogen supply.
✅ 10,000 kW H2 production hub in Namie, Fukushima
✅ Balances renewable-heavy grids via demand response
✅ Supported by NEDO; partners Toshiba, Tohoku Electric, Iwatani
Toshiba Corporation, Tohoku Electric Power Co. and Iwatani Corporation have announced they will construct and operate a large-scale hydrogen (H2) energy system in Japan, based on a 10,000 kilowat class H2 production facility, which reflects advances in PEM hydrogen R&D worldwide.
The system, which will be built in Namie-Cho, Fukushima, will use H2 to offset grid loads and deliver H2 to locations in Tohoku and beyond, while complementary approaches like power-to-gas storage in Europe demonstrate broader storage options, and will seek to demonstrate the advantages of H2 as a solution in grid balancing and as a H2 gas supply.
The product has won a positive evaluation from Japan’s New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organisation (NEDO), and its continued support for the transition to the technical demonstration phase. The practical effectiveness of the large-scale system will be determined by verification testing in financial year 2020, even as interest grows in nuclear beyond electricity for complementary services.
The main objectives of the partners are to promote expanded use of renewable energy in the electricity grid, including UK offshore wind investment by Japanese utilities, in order to balance supply and demand and process load management; and to realise a new control system that optimises H2 production and supply with demand forecasting for H2.
Hiroyuki Ota, General Manager of Toshiba’s Energy Systems and Solutions Company, said, “Through this project, Toshiba will continue to provide comprehensive H2 solutions, encompassing all processes from the production to utilisation of hydrogen.”
Manager of Tohoku Electric Power Co., Ltd, Mitsuhiro Matsumoto, added, “We will study how to use H2 energy systems to stabilize electricity grids with the aim of increasing the use of renewable energy and contributing to Fukushima.”
Moriyuki Fujimoto, General Manager of Iwatani Corporation, commented, “Iwatani considers that this project will contribute to the early establishment of a H2 economy that draws on our experience in the transportation, storage and supply of industrial H2, and the construction and operation of H2stations.”
Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry’s ‘Long-term Energy Supply and Demand Outlook’ targets increasing the share of renewable energy in Japan’s overall power generation mix from 10.7% in 2013 to 22-24% by 2030. Since output from renewable energy sources is intermittent and fluctuates widely with the weather and season, grid management requires another compensatory power source, as highlighted by a near-blackout event in Japan. The large hydrogen energy system is expected to provide a solution for grids with a high penetration of renewables.
Bitcoin Energy Consumption drives debate on blockchain mining, proof-of-work, carbon footprint, and emissions, with CCAF estimates in terawatt hours highlighting electricity demand, fossil fuel reliance, and sustainability concerns for data centers and cryptocurrency networks.
Key Points
Electricity used by Bitcoin proof-of-work mining, often fossil-fueled, estimated by CCAF in terawatt hours.
✅ CCAF: 40-445 TWh, central estimate ~130 TWh
✅ ~66% of mining electricity sourced from fossil fuels
✅ Proof-of-work increases hash rate, energy, and emissions
The University of Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) studies the burgeoning business of cryptocurrencies.
It calculates that Bitcoin's total energy consumption is somewhere between 40 and 445 annualised terawatt hours (TWh), with a central estimate of about 130 terawatt hours.
The UK's electricity consumption is a little over 300 TWh a year, while Argentina uses around the same amount of power as the CCAF's best guess for Bitcoin, as countries like New Zealand's electricity future are debated to balance demand.
And the electricity the Bitcoin miners use overwhelmingly comes from polluting sources, with the U.S. grid not 100% renewable underscoring broader energy mix challenges worldwide.
The CCAF team surveys the people who manage the Bitcoin network around the world on their energy use and found that about two-thirds of it is from fossil fuels, and some regions are weighing curbs like Russia's proposed mining ban amid electricity deficits.
Huge computing power - and therefore energy use - is built into the way the blockchain technology that underpins the cryptocurrency has been designed.
It relies on a vast decentralised network of computers.
These are the so-called Bitcoin "miners" who enable new Bitcoins to be created, but also independently verify and record every transaction made in the currency.
In fact, the Bitcoins are the reward miners get for maintaining this record accurately.
It works like a lottery that runs every 10 minutes, explains Gina Pieters, an economics professor at the University of Chicago and a research fellow with the CCAF team.
Data processing centres around the world, including hotspots such as Iceland's mining strain, race to compile and submit this record of transactions in a way that is acceptable to the system.
They also have to guess a random number.
The first to submit the record and the correct number wins the prize - this becomes the next block in the blockchain.
Estimates for bitcoin's electricity consumption At the moment, they are rewarded with six-and-a-quarter Bitcoins, valued at about $50,000 each.
As soon as one lottery is over, a new number is generated, and the whole process starts again.
The higher the price, says Prof Pieters, the more miners want to get into the game, and utilities like BC Hydro suspending new crypto connections highlight grid pressures.
"They want to get that revenue," she tells me, "and that's what's going to encourage them to introduce more and more powerful machines in order to guess this random number, and therefore you will see an increase in energy consumption," she says.
And there is another factor that drives Bitcoin's increasing energy consumption.
The software ensures it always takes 10 minutes for the puzzle to be solved, so if the number of miners is increasing, the puzzle gets harder and the more computing power needs to be thrown at it.
Bitcoin is therefore actually designed to encourage increased computing effort.
The idea is that the more computers that compete to maintain the blockchain, the safer it becomes, because anyone who might want to try and undermine the currency must control and operate at least as much computing power as the rest of the miners put together.
What this means is that, as Bitcoin gets more valuable, the computing effort expended on creating and maintaining it - and therefore the energy consumed - inevitably increases.
We can track how much effort miners are making to create the currency.
They are currently reckoned to be making 160 quintillion calculations every second - that's 160,000,000,000,000,000,000, in case you were wondering.
And this vast computational effort is the cryptocurrency's Achilles heel, says Alex de Vries, the founder of the Digiconomist website and an expert on Bitcoin.
All the millions of trillions of calculations it takes to keep the system running aren't really doing any useful work.
"They're computations that serve no other purpose," says de Vries, "they're just immediately discarded again. Right now we're using a whole lot of energy to produce those calculations, but also the majority of that is sourced from fossil energy, and clean energy's 'dirty secret' complicates substitution."
The vast effort it requires also makes Bitcoin inherently difficult to scale, he argues.
"If Bitcoin were to be adopted as a global reserve currency," he speculates, "the Bitcoin price will probably be in the millions, and those miners will have more money than the entire [US] Federal budget to spend on electricity."
"We'd have to double our global energy production," he says with a laugh, even as some argue cheap abundant electricity is getting closer to reality today. "For Bitcoin."
He says it also limits the number of transactions the system can process to about five per second.
This doesn't make for a useful currency, he argues.
Rising price of bitcoin graphic And that view is echoed by many eminent figures in finance and economics.
The two essential features of a successful currency are that it is an effective form of exchange and a stable store of value, says Ken Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
He says Bitcoin is neither.
"The fact is, it's not really used much in the legal economy now. Yes, one rich person sells it to another, but that's not a final use. And without that it really doesn't have a long-term future."
What he is saying is that Bitcoin exists almost exclusively as a vehicle for speculation.
Duke Energy Clean Energy Strategy advances renewables, battery storage, grid modernization, and energy efficiency to cut carbon, retire coal, and target net-zero by 2050 across the Carolinas with robust IRPs and capital investments.
Key Points
Plan to expand renewables, storage, and grid upgrades to cut carbon and reach net-zero electricity by 2050.
✅ 56B investment in renewables, storage, and grid modernization
✅ Targets 50% carbon reduction by 2030 and net-zero by 2050
✅ Retires coal units; expands energy efficiency and IRPs
Duke Energy says that the company will continue advancing its ambitious clean energy goals without the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) by investing in renewables, battery storage, energy efficiency programs and grid projects that support U.S. electrification efforts.
Duke Energy, the nation's largest electric utility, unveils its new logo. (PRNewsFoto/Duke Energy) (PRNewsfoto/Duke Energy)
Duke Energy's $56 billion capital investment plan will deliver significant customer benefits and create jobs at a time when policymakers at all levels are looking for ways to rebuild the economy in 2020 and beyond. These investments will deliver cleaner energy for customers and communities while enhancing the energy grid to provide greater reliability and resiliency.
"Sustainability and the reduction of carbon emissions are closely tied to our region's success," said Lynn Good, Duke Energy Chair, President and CEO. "In our recent Climate Report, we shared a vision of a cleaner electricity future with an increasing focus on renewables and battery storage in addition to a diverse mix of zero-carbon nuclear, natural gas, hydro and energy efficiency programs.
"Achieving this clean energy vision will require all of us working together to develop a plan that is smart, equitable and ensures the reliability and affordability that will spur economic growth in the region. While we're disappointed that we're not able to move forward with ACP, we will continue exploring ways to help our customers and communities, particularly in eastern North Carolina where the need is great," said Good.
Already a clean-energy leader, Duke Energy has reduced its carbon emissions by 39% from 2005 and remains on track to cut its carbon emissions by at least 50% by 2030, as peers like Alliant's carbon-neutral plan demonstrate broader industry momentum toward decarbonization. The company also has an ambitious clean energy goal of reaching net-zero emissions from electricity generation by 2050.
In September 2020, Duke Energy plans to file its Integrated Resource Plans (IRP) for the Carolinas after an extensive process of working with the state's leaders, policymakers, customers and other stakeholders. The IRPs will include multiple scenarios to support a path to a cleaner energy future in the Carolinas, reflecting key utility trends shaping resource planning.
Since 2010, Duke Energy has retired 51 coal units totaling more than 6,500 megawatts (MW) and plans to retire at least an additional 900 MW by the end of 2024. In 2019, the company proposed to shorten the book lives of another approximately 7,700 MW of coal capacity in North Carolina and Indiana.
Duke Energy will host an analyst call in early August 2020 to discuss second quarter 2020 financial results and other business and financial updates. The company will also host its inaugural Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investor day in October 2020.
Duke Energy
Duke Energy is transforming its customers' experience, modernizing the energy grid, generating cleaner energy and expanding natural gas infrastructure to create a smarter energy future for the people and communities it serves. The Electric Utilities and Infrastructure unit's regulated utilities serve 7.8 million retail electric customers in six states: North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky. The Gas Utilities and Infrastructure unit distributes natural gas to 1.6 million customers in five states: North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio and Kentucky. The Duke Energy Renewables unit operates wind and solar generation facilities across the U.S., as well as energy storage and microgrid projects.
Duke Energy was named to Fortune's 2020 "World's Most Admired Companies" list and Forbes' "America's Best Employers" list. More information about the company is available at duke-energy.com. The Duke Energy News Center contains news releases, fact sheets, photos, videos and other materials. Duke Energy's illumination features stories about people, innovations, community topics and environmental issues. Follow Duke Energy on Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook.
Forward-Looking Information
This document includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward-looking statements are based on management's beliefs and assumptions and can often be identified by terms and phrases that include "anticipate," "believe," "intend," "estimate," "expect," "continue," "should," "could," "may," "plan," "project," "predict," "will," "potential," "forecast," "target," "guidance," "outlook" or other similar terminology. Various factors may cause actual results to be materially different than the suggested outcomes within forward-looking statements; accordingly, there is no assurance that such results will be realized. These factors include, but are not limited to:
State, federal and foreign legislative and regulatory initiatives, including costs of compliance with existing and future environmental requirements, including those related to climate change, as well as rulings that affect cost and investment recovery or have an impact on rate structures or market prices;
The extent and timing of costs and liabilities to comply with federal and state laws, regulations and legal requirements related to coal ash remediation, including amounts for required closure of certain ash impoundments, are uncertain and difficult to estimate;
The ability to recover eligible costs, including amounts associated with coal ash impoundment retirement obligations and costs related to significant weather events, and to earn an adequate return on investment through rate case proceedings and the regulatory process;
The costs of decommissioning nuclear facilities could prove to be more extensive than amounts estimated and all costs may not be fully recoverable through the regulatory process;
Costs and effects of legal and administrative proceedings, settlements, investigations and claims;
Industrial, commercial and residential growth or decline in service territories or customer bases resulting from sustained downturns of the economy and the economic health of our service territories or variations in customer usage patterns, including energy efficiency and demand response efforts and use of alternative energy sources, such as self-generation and distributed generation technologies;
Federal and state regulations, laws and other efforts designed to promote and expand the use of energy efficiency measures and distributed generation technologies, such as private solar and battery storage, in Duke Energy service territories could result in customers leaving the electric distribution system, excess generation resources as well as stranded costs;
Advancements in technology;
Additional competition in electric and natural gas markets and continued industry consolidation;
The influence of weather and other natural phenomena on operations, including the economic, operational and other effects of severe storms, hurricanes, droughts, earthquakes and tornadoes, including extreme weather associated with climate change;
The ability to successfully operate electric generating facilities and deliver electricity to customers including direct or indirect effects to the company resulting from an incident that affects the U.S. electric grid or generating resources;
The ability to obtain the necessary permits and approvals and to complete necessary or desirable pipeline expansion or infrastructure projects in our natural gas business;
Operational interruptions to our natural gas distribution and transmission activities;
The availability of adequate interstate pipeline transportation capacity and natural gas supply;
The impact on facilities and business from a terrorist attack, cybersecurity threats, data security breaches, operational accidents, information technology failures or other catastrophic events, such as fires, explosions, pandemic health events or other similar occurrences;
The inherent risks associated with the operation of nuclear facilities, including environmental, health, safety, regulatory and financial risks, including the financial stability of third-party service providers;
The timing and extent of changes in commodity prices and interest rates and the ability to recover such costs through the regulatory process, where appropriate, and their impact on liquidity positions and the value of underlying assets;
The results of financing efforts, including the ability to obtain financing on favorable terms, which can be affected by various factors, including credit ratings, interest rate fluctuations, compliance with debt covenants and conditions and general market and economic conditions;
Credit ratings of the Duke Energy Registrants may be different from what is expected;
Declines in the market prices of equity and fixed-income securities and resultant cash funding requirements for defined benefit pension plans, other post-retirement benefit plans and nuclear decommissioning trust funds;
Construction and development risks associated with the completion of the Duke Energy Registrants' capital investment projects, including risks related to financing, obtaining and complying with terms of permits, meeting construction budgets and schedules and satisfying operating and environmental performance standards, as well as the ability to recover costs from customers in a timely manner, or at all;
Changes in rules for regional transmission organizations, including FERC debates on coal and nuclear subsidies and new and evolving capacity markets, and risks related to obligations created by the default of other participants;
The ability to control operation and maintenance costs;
The level of creditworthiness of counterparties to transactions;
The ability to obtain adequate insurance at acceptable costs;
Employee workforce factors, including the potential inability to attract and retain key personnel;
The ability of subsidiaries to pay dividends or distributions to Duke Energy Corporation holding company (the Parent);
The performance of projects undertaken by our nonregulated businesses and the success of efforts to invest in and develop new opportunities;
The effect of accounting pronouncements issued periodically by accounting standard-setting bodies;
The impact of U.S. tax legislation to our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows and our credit ratings;
The impacts from potential impairments of goodwill or equity method investment carrying values; and
The ability to implement our business strategy, including enhancing existing technology systems.
Additional risks and uncertainties are identified and discussed in the Duke Energy Registrants' reports filed with the SEC and available at the SEC's website at sec.gov. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the events described in the forward-looking statements might not occur or might occur to a different extent or at a different time than described. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made and the Duke Energy Registrants expressly disclaim an obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
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.
Pacific Northwest Transmission Bottleneck slows clean energy progress as BPA's aging grid constrains renewable interconnections, delaying wind, solar, and data center growth; decarbonization targets depend on transmission upgrades, new substations, and policy reform.
Key Points
An interconnection and capacity shortfall on BPA's aging grid that delays renewables and impedes clean energy goals.
✅ BPA approvals lag: 1 of 469 projects since 2015.
✅ Yakama solar waits for substation upgrades until 2027.
✅ Data centers and decarbonization targets face grid constraints.
Oregon and Washington have set ambitious targets to decarbonize their power sectors, aiming for 100% clean electricity in the coming decades. However, a significant obstacle stands in the way: the region's aging and overburdened transmission grid, underscoring why 100% renewables remain elusive even as momentum builds.
The Grid Bottleneck
The BPA operates a transmission system that is nearly a century old in some areas, and its capacity has not expanded sufficiently to accommodate the influx of renewable energy projects, reflecting stalled grid spending in many parts of the U.S., according to recent analyses. Since 2015, 469 large renewable projects have applied to connect to the BPA's grid; however, only one has been approved—a stark contrast to other regions in the country. This bottleneck has left numerous wind and solar projects in limbo, unable to deliver power to the grid.
One notable example is the Yakama Nation's solar project. Despite receiving a $32 million federal grant under the bipartisan infrastructure law as part of a broader grid overhaul for renewables, the tribe faces significant delays. The BPA estimates that it will take until 2027 to complete the necessary upgrades to the transmission system, including a new substation, before the solar array can be connected. This timeline poses a risk of losing federal funding if the project isn't operational by 2031.
Economic and Environmental Implications
The slow pace of grid expansion has broader implications for the region's economy and environmental goals. Data centers and other energy-intensive industries are increasingly drawn to the Pacific Northwest due to its clean energy potential, while interregional projects like the Wyoming-to-California wind link illustrate how transmission access can unlock supply. However, without adequate infrastructure, these industries may seek alternatives elsewhere. Additionally, the inability to integrate renewable energy efficiently hampers efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change.
Policy Challenges and Legislative Efforts
Efforts to address the grid limitations through state-level initiatives have faced challenges, even as a federal rule to boost transmission advances nationally. In 2025, both Oregon and Washington considered legislation to establish state bonding authorities aimed at financing transmission upgrades. However, these bills failed to pass, leaving the BPA as the primary entity responsible for grid expansion. The BPA's unique structure—operating as a self-funded federal agency without direct state oversight—has made it difficult for regional leaders to influence its decision-making processes.
Looking Ahead
The Pacific Northwest's renewable energy aspirations hinge on modernizing its transmission infrastructure, aligning with decarbonization strategies that emphasize grid buildout. While the BPA has proposed several projects to enhance grid capacity, the timeline for completion remains uncertain. Without significant investment and policy reforms, the region risks falling behind in the transition to a clean energy future. Stakeholders across Oregon and Washington must collaborate to advocate for necessary changes and ensure that the grid can support the growing demand for renewable energy.
The Pacific Northwest's commitment to clean energy is commendable, but achieving these goals requires overcoming substantial infrastructure challenges, and neighboring jurisdictions such as British Columbia have pursued B.C. regulatory streamlining to accelerate projects. Addressing the limitations of the BPA's transmission system is critical to unlocking the full potential of renewable energy in the region. Only through concerted efforts at the federal, state, and local levels can Oregon and Washington hope to realize their green energy ambitions.
Canada Clean Electricity Regulations 2050 balance net-zero goals with grid reliability and affordability, setting emissions caps, enabling offset credits, and flexible provincial pathways, including support for non-grid facilities during the clean energy transition.
Key Points
A federal plan for a net-zero grid by 2050 with emissions caps, offsets, and flexible provincial compliance.
✅ Emissions cap targeting 181 Mt CO2 from the power sector by 2050
✅ Offset credits and annual limits enable compliance flexibility
✅ Support for remote, non-grid facilities and regional pathways
In December 2024, the Government of Canada announced a significant policy shift regarding its clean electricity objectives. The initial target to achieve a net-zero electricity grid by 2035 has been extended to 2050. This decision reflects the government's response to feedback from provinces and energy industry stakeholders, who expressed concerns about the feasibility of meeting the 2035 deadline.
Revised Clean Electricity Regulations
The newly finalized Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) outline the framework for Canada's transition to a net-zero electricity grid by 2050, advancing the goal of 100 per cent clean electricity nationwide.
Emissions Reduction Targets: The regulations set a cap on emissions from the electricity sector, targeting a reduction of 181 megatonnes of CO₂ by 2050. This is a decrease from the previous goal of 342 megatonnes, reflecting a more gradual approach to emissions reduction.
Flexibility Mechanisms: To accommodate the diverse energy landscapes across provinces, the CER introduces flexibility measures. These include annual emissions limits and the option to use offset credits, allowing provinces to tailor their strategies while adhering to national objectives.
Support for Non-Grid Connected Facilities: Recognizing the unique challenges of remote and off-grid communities, the regulations provide accommodations for certain non-grid connected facilities, ensuring that all regions can contribute to the national clean electricity goals.
Implications for Canada's Energy Landscape
The extension of the net-zero electricity target to 2050 signifies a strategic recalibration of Canada's energy policy. This adjustment acknowledges the complexities involved in transitioning to a clean energy future, including:
Grid Modernization: Upgrading the electrical grid to accommodate renewable energy sources and ensure reliability is a critical component of the transition, especially as Ontario's EV wave accelerates across the province.
Economic Considerations: Balancing environmental objectives with economic impacts is essential. The government aims to create over 400,000 clean energy jobs, fostering economic growth while reducing emissions, supported by ambitious EV goals in the transport sector.
Regional Variations: Provinces have diverse energy profiles and resources, and British Columbia's power supply challenges highlight planning constraints. The CER's flexibility mechanisms are designed to accommodate these differences, allowing for tailored approaches that respect regional contexts.
Public and Industry Reactions
The policy shift has elicited varied responses:
Environmental Advocates: Some environmental groups express concern that the extended timeline may delay critical climate action, while debates over Quebec's push for EV dominance underscore policy trade-offs. They emphasize the need for more ambitious targets to address the escalating impacts of climate change.
Industry Stakeholders: The energy sector generally welcomes the extended timeline, viewing it as a pragmatic approach that allows for a more measured transition, particularly amid criticism of the 2035 EV mandate in transportation policy. The flexibility provisions are particularly appreciated, as they provide the necessary leeway to adapt to evolving market and technological conditions.
Looking Forward
As Canada moves forward with the implementation of the Clean Electricity Regulations, the focus will be on:
Monitoring Progress: Establishing robust mechanisms to track emissions reductions and ensure compliance with the new targets.
Stakeholder Engagement: Continuing dialogue with provinces, industry, and communities to refine strategies and address emerging challenges, including coordination on EV sales regulations as complementary measures.
Innovation and Investment: Encouraging the development and deployment of clean energy technologies through incentives and support programs.
The extension of Canada's net-zero electricity target to 2050 represents a strategic adjustment aimed at achieving a balance between environmental goals and practical implementation considerations. The Clean Electricity Regulations provide a framework that accommodates regional differences and industry concerns, setting the stage for a sustainable and economically viable energy future.
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.
