Southern California Edison plans to install 250 megawattsÂ’ worth of solar panels on commercial rooftops, generating enough electricity to power 162,000 homes.
ItÂ’s a potentially game-changing move, one that could lower the cost of solar cells as manufacturers ramp up production to meet the utilityÂ’s schedule of installing a megawatt-a-week of arrays until it reaches the 250-megawatt target. That alone is more than United StatesÂ’ entire production of solar cells in 2006 and will generate as much electricity as a small coal-fired power plant, albeit with no greenhouse gas emissions.
“This project will turn two square miles of unused commercial rooftops into advanced solar generating stations,” said John Bryson, CEO of the utility’s parent company, Edison International (EIX), in a recent statement.
The $875 million initiative also marks the first big foray into so-called distributed energy by a major utility. Instead of building a centralized power station and the expensive transmission system needed to transmit electricity to the power grid, Edison will connect clusters of solar arrays into existing neighborhood circuits. A significant hurdle for the massive megawatt solar power plants planned for CaliforniaÂ’s Mojave Desert is the need in some cases to build multi billion-dollar transmission systems through environmentally sensitive lands to bring the electricity to coastal metropolises.
Solar arrays of course only generate electricity when the sun is shining, but they produce the most power during the hottest part of the day when Southern Californians crank up their air conditioners. The arrays could help spare Edison from having to fire up a fossil-fuel power plant when demand peaks.
Edison spokesman Gil Alexander told Green Wombat that the utility expects the projectÂ’s scale to allow arrays to be placed on roofs at half the cost of a typical installation. EdisonÂ’s ambitions could prove a boon for solar cell makers like SunPower (SPWR) and Suntech (STP) as well as solar installation companies such as Akeena (AKNS). One unknown is whether the demand created by Edison will drive up costs in the short term, given ongoing shortages of polysilicon, the base material of solar cells. The Edison project could also help jump-start the market for thin-film solar panels, which typically use far less silicon than conventional solar cells.
Alexander says Edison is already negotiating with solar panel makers and installers. Needless to say, the project will up local hiring of green collar workers.
Here’s how the solar roofs initiative will work: Edison will lease 65 million square feet of warehouse rooftop space from building owners. (The target area is the fast-growing “Inland Empire” of Riverside and San Bernardino counties.) The utility will contract for the installation of the arrays and will retain ownership of the solar systems. California regulators appear inclined to approve the project, which will be financed by a hike in utility rates.
“This will be a utility-scale solar power plant, if one thinks of the 100 or so buildings on which the two square miles of solar panels will be installed,” Alexander wrote in an e-mail. “One advantage of this project is that we will tap unused rooftop real estate directly in areas we serve where demand is growing rather than securing a major plat of land in a remote area and then building transmission lines to bring the power to those areas of rising demand.”
Anyone who has driven through Los Angeles can attest to the endless acres of big-box stores, warehouses and strip malls and thus the potential to generate green power from sun-baked suburban sprawl.
EdisonÂ’s solar roof ramp up is likely to put pressure on CaliforniaÂ’s other big utilities, PG&E (PCG) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SRE), to follow suit. Like Edison, they face a state mandate to obtain 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010 and 33 percent by 2020. CaliforniaÂ’s global warming law requires the stateÂ’s greenhouse gas emissions to be rolled back to 1990 levels by 2020.
The Governator himself gave a not-so-subtle nudge to EdisonÂ’s competitors.
“These are the kinds of big ideas we need to meet California’s long-term energy and climate change goals,” said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a statement. “I urge others to follow in their footsteps. If commercial buildings statewide partnered with utilities to put this solar technology on their rooftops, it would set off a huge wave of renewable energy growth.”
PG&E Bankruptcy Plan outlines wildfire victims compensation via a $13.5B trust funded by cash and stock, aiming CPUC and court approval before June 30 to access the state wildfire insurance fund and finalize settlement.
Key Points
A regulator-approved plan funding a $13.5B wildfire victims trust with cash and PG&E stock to exit bankruptcy.
✅ $13.5B trust split between cash and PG&E shares
✅ Targets CPUC and court approval to meet June 30 deadline
✅ Accesses state wildfire insurance fund for future risks
Pacific Gas & Electric's plan for getting out of bankruptcy has won overwhelming support from the victims of deadly Northern California wildfires ignited by the utility's fraying electrical grid, while some have pursued mega-fire lawsuits through the courts as well, despite concerns that they will be shortchanged by a $13.5 billion fund that's supposed to cover their losses.
The company announced the preliminary results of the vote on Monday without providing a specific tally. Those numbers are supposed to be filed with U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali by Friday.
The backing of the wildfire victims keeps PG&E on track to meet a June 30 deadline to emerge from bankruptcy in time to qualify for a coverage from a California wildfire insurance fund created to help protect the utility from getting into financial trouble again.
The current bankruptcy case, which began early last year, will require PG&E to pay out about $25.5 billion to cover the devastation caused by its neglect, including a Camp Fire guilty plea that underscored liabilities in court proceedings. It's the second time in less than 20 years that PG&E has filed for bankruptcy.
The backing for PG&E's plan isn't a surprise, even though some of the roughly 80,000 wildfire victims had been trying to rally resistance to what they consider to be a deeply flawed plan. The misgivings mostly center on the massive debt that the utility will take on to finance the plan and uncertainties about the fluctuating value of the $6.75 billion in company stock that comprises half of the $13.5 billion promised them.
As it became apparent that the COVID-19 pandemic would drive the economy into a deep recession, PG&E's shares plunged along with the rest of the stock market during March, even as it announced pandemic response measures for customers and employees during that period. That led one financial expert to estimate the PG&E stock earmarked for the wildfire victims' trust would be worth only $4.85 billion, a nearly 30% markdown.
But PG&E's stock price has rebounded in recent weeks and it's now worth more than it was when the deal setting up the victims' trust was struck last December. The shares surged more than 8% to $12.28 in Monday's late afternoon trading. The stock stood at $9.65 when PG&E reached its settlement the wildfire victims.
Critics of the utility's plan also are upset because the company still hasn't specified when the fire victims will be able to sell the shares. It now seems likely the victims will have to hold the stock through the upcoming wildfire season in Northern California, raising the specter that another calamity caused by the utility's badly outdated equipment, as power line fire reports have underscored, could cause the shares to plummet before they can cash out.
A petition signed by more than 3,100 wildfire victims recently urged Gov. Gavin Newsom to consider pushing back the deadline for qualifying for the state's wildfire from June 30 to late August to allow for more time to revise PG&E's plan, as many also turn to a wildfire assistance program for interim aid while they wait. Newsom's office hasn't responded to inquiry about the plan from The Associated Press.
But the lawyers representing the wildfire victims advised their clients to vote in favor of PG&E's plan, contending that it's the best deal they are going to get.
PG&E still must get its plan approved by the judge supervising its case, and a recent judge order on dividend use underscores the focus on wildfire mitigation. The confirmation hearings are scheduled to begin May 27. The judge, though, has indicated he will give great weight to the wishes of the wildfire victims.
California state regulators also must approve PG&E's plan, amid projections that rates will stabilize in 2025 for customers. A vote on that is scheduled Thursday before the Public Utilities Commission.
Ontario SMR BWRX-300 leads Canada in next-gen nuclear energy at Darlington, with GE Vernova and Hitachi, delivering clean, reliable power via modular design, passive safety, scalability, and lower costs for grid integration.
Key Points
Ontario SMR BWRX-300 is a 300 MW modular boiling water reactor at Darlington with passive safety and clean power.
✅ 300 MW BWR supplies power for about 300,000 homes
✅ Passive safety enables safe shutdown without external power
✅ Modular design reduces costs and speeds grid integration
Ontario has initiated the construction of Canada's first small modular nuclear reactor (SMR), supported by OPG's SMR commitment to deployment, marking a significant milestone in the province's energy strategy. This development positions Ontario at the forefront of next-generation nuclear technology within the G7 nations.
The project, known as the Darlington New Nuclear Project, is being led by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) in collaboration with GE Vernova and Hitachi Nuclear Energy, and through its OPG-TVA partnership on new nuclear technology development. The chosen design is the BWRX-300, a 300-megawatt boiling water reactor that is approximately one-tenth the size and complexity of traditional nuclear reactors. The first unit is expected to be operational by 2029, with plans for additional units to follow.
Each BWRX-300 reactor is projected to supply electricity to about 300,000 homes, contributing to Ontario's efforts, which include the decision to refurbish Pickering B for additional baseload capacity, to meet the anticipated 75% increase in electricity demand by 2050. The compact design of the SMR allows for easier integration into existing infrastructure, reducing the need for extensive new transmission lines.
The economic impact of the project is substantial. The construction of four such reactors is expected to create up to 18,000 jobs and contribute approximately $38.5 billion CAD to the Canadian economy, reflecting the economic benefits of nuclear projects over 65 years. The modular nature of SMRs also allows for scalability, with each additional unit potentially reducing costs through economies of scale.
Safety is a paramount consideration in the design of the BWRX-300. The reactor employs passive safety features, meaning it can safely shut down without the need for external power or operator intervention. This design enhances the reactor's resilience to potential emergencies, aligning with stringent regulatory standards.
Ontario's commitment to nuclear energy is further demonstrated by its plans for four SMRs at the Darlington site. This initiative reflects a broader strategy to diversify the province's energy mix, incorporating clean and reliable power sources to complement renewable energy efforts.
While the development of SMRs in Ontario is a significant step forward, it also aligns with the Canadian nuclear initiative positioning Canada as a leader in the global nuclear energy landscape. The successful implementation of the BWRX-300 could serve as a model for other nations exploring advanced nuclear technologies.
Ontario's groundbreaking work on small modular nuclear reactors represents a forward-thinking approach to energy generation. By embracing innovative technologies, the province is not only addressing future energy demands but also, through the Pickering NGS life extension, contributing to the global transition towards sustainable and secure energy solutions.
Trump NEPA Overhaul streamlines environmental reviews, tightening 'reasonably foreseeable' effects, curbing cumulative impacts, codifying CEQ greenhouse gas guidance, expediting permits for pipelines, highways, and wind projects with two-year EIS limits and one lead agency.
✅ Limits cumulative and indirect impacts; emphasizes foreseeable effects
✅ Caps EIS at two years; one-year environmental assessments
✅ One lead agency; narrower NEPA triggers for low federal funding
President Trump has announced plans for overhauling rules surrounding the nation’s bedrock environmental law, and administration officials refuted claims they were downplaying greenhouse gas emissions, as the administration also pursues replacement power plant rules in related areas.
The president, during remarks at the White House with supporters and Cabinet officials, said he wanted to fix the nation’s “regulatory nightmare” through new guidelines for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act.
“America is a nation of builders,” he said. But it takes too long to get a permit, and that’s “big government at its absolute worst.”
The president said, “We’re maintaining America’s world-class standards of environmental protection.” He added, “We’re going to have very strong regulation, but it’s going to go very quickly.”
NEPA says the federal government must consider alternatives to major projects like oil pipelines, highways and bridges that could inflict environmental harm. The law also gives communities input.
The Council on Environmental Quality has not updated the implementing rules in decades, and both energy companies and environmentalists want them reworked, even as some industry groups warned against rushing electricity pricing changes under related policy debates.
But they patently disagree on how to change the rules.
A central fight surrounds whether the government considers climate change concerns when analyzing a project.
Environmentalists want agencies to look more at “cumulative” or “indirect” impacts of projects. The Trump plan shuts the door on that.
“Analysis of cumulative effects is not required,” the plan states, adding that CEQ “proposes to make amendments to simplify the definition of effects by consolidating the definition into a single paragraph.”
CEQ Chairwoman Mary Neumayr told reporters during a conference call that definitions in the current rules were the “subject of confusion.”
The proposed changes, she said, do in fact eliminate the terms “cumulative” and “indirect,” in favor of more simplified language.
Effects must be “reasonably foreseeable” and require a “reasonably close causal relationship” to the proposed action, she added. “It does not exclude considerations of greenhouse gas emissions,” she said, pointing to parallel EPA proposals for new pollution limits on coal and gas power plants as context.
Last summer, CEQ issued proposed guidance on greenhouse gas reviews in project permitting. The nonbinding document gave agencies broad authority when considering emissions (Greenwire, June 21, 2019).
Environmentalists scoffed and said the proposed guidance failed to incorporate the latest climate science and look at how projects could be more resilient in the face of severe weather and sea-level rise.
The proposed NEPA rules released today include provisions to codify the proposed guidance, which has also been years in the making.
Other provisions
Senior administration officials sought to downplay the effect of the proposed NEPA rules by noting the underlying statute will remain the same.
“If it required NEPA yesterday, it will require NEPA under the new proposal,” an official said when asked how the changes might apply to pipelines like Keystone XL.
And yet the proposed changes could alter the “threshold consideration” that triggers NEPA review. The proposal would exclude projects with minimal federal funding or “participation.”
The Trump plan also proposes restricting an environmental impact statement to two years and an environmental assessment to one.
Neumayr said the average EIS takes 4 ½ years and in some cases longer. Democrats have disputed those timelines. Further, just 1% of all federal actions require an EIS, they argue.
The proposal would also require one agency to take the lead on permitting and require agency officials to “timely resolve disputes that may result in delays.”
In general, the plan calls for environmental documents to be “concise” and “serve their purpose of informing decision makers.”
Both Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, whose agency moved to rewrite coal power plant wastewater limits in separate actions, were at the White House for the announcement.
Reaction
An onslaught of critics have said changes to NEPA rules could be the administration’s most far-reaching environmental rollback, and state attorneys general have mounted a legal challenge to related energy actions as well.
The League of Conservation Voters declared the administration was again trying to “sell out the health and well-being of our children and families to corporate polluters.”
On Capitol Hill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said during a news conference the administration would “no longer enforce NEPA.”
“This means more polluters will be right there, next to the water supply of our children,” she said. “That’s a public health issue. Their denial of climate, they are going to not use the climate issue as anything to do with environmental decisionmaking.”
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) echoed the sentiment, saying he didn’t need any more proof that the fossil fuel industry had hardwired the Trump administration “but we got it anyway.”
Energy companies, including firms focused on renewable energy development, are welcoming the “clarity” of the proposed NEPA rules, even as debates continue over a clean electricity standard in federal climate policy.
“The lack of clarity in the existing NEPA regulations has led courts to fill the gaps, spurring costly litigation across the sector, and has led to unclear expectations, which has caused significant and unnecessary delays for infrastructure projects across the country,” the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America said in a statement.
Last night, the American Wind Energy Association said NEPA rules have caused “unreasonable and unnecessary costs and long project delays” for land-based and offshore wind energy and transmission development.
Trump has famously attacked the wind energy industry for decades, dating back to his opposition to a Scottish wind turbine near his golf course.
The president today said he won’t stop until “gleaming new infrastructure has made America the envy of the world again.”
When asked whether he thought climate change was a “hoax,” as he once tweeted, he said no. “Nothing’s a hoax about that,” he said.
The president said there’s a book about climate he’s planning to read. He said, “It’s a very serious subject.”
Egypt-ENI Hydrogen MoU outlines joint feasibility studies for green and blue hydrogen using renewable energy, carbon capture, and CO2 storage, targeting domestic demand, exports, and net-zero goals within Egypt's energy transition.
Key Points
A pact to study green and blue hydrogen in Egypt, leveraging renewables, CO2 storage, and export/demand pathways.
✅ Feasibility study for green and blue hydrogen projects
✅ Uses renewables, SMR, carbon capture, and CO2 storage
✅ Targets local demand, exports, and net-zero alignment
The Egyptian Electricity Holding Company (EEHC) and the Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Company (EGAS) signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the Italian energy giant Eni to assess the technical and commercial feasibility of green and blue hydrogen production projects in Egypt, which many see as central to power companies' future strategies worldwide today.
Under the MoU, a study will be conducted to assess joint projects for the production of green hydrogen using electricity generated from renewable energy and supported by regional electricity interconnections where relevant, and blue hydrogen using the storage of CO2 in depleted natural gas fields, according to a statement by the Ministry of Petroleum on Thursday.
The study will also estimate the potential local market consumption of hydrogen and export opportunities, taking cues from Ontario's hydrogen economy proposal to align electricity rates for growth.
This agreement is part of Eni's objective to achieve zero net emissions by 2050 and Egypt's strategy towards diversifying the energy mix and developing hydrogen projects in collaboration with major international companies, taking note of Italy's green hydrogen initiatives in Sicily as a comparable effort.
It signed the deal with Egyptian Natural Gas Holding (EGAS) and Egyptian Electricity Holding Co. (EEHC).
The companies will carry out a joint study on producing renewable energy powered green hydrogen, informed by electrolyzer investments in similar projects, where applicable. They will also work on blue hydrogen. This involves reforming natural gas and capturing the resulting CO2, in this instance in depleted natural gas fields.
The study will also consider domestic hydrogen use and export options, including funding models like the Hydrogen Innovation Fund now in Ontario.
Eni said the MoU was in line with its plans to eliminate net emissions and emissions cancel emission intensity by 2050. The company noted the agreement was in line with Egypt’s plan for the energy transition, in which it pursues hydrogen plans with major international companies, alongside broader clean-tech collaboration such as Tesla cooperation discussions in Dubai, to accelerate progress.
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.
UK Offshore Wind Expansion will make wind the main power source, driving renewable energy, offshore projects, smart grids, battery storage, and interconnectors to cut carbon emissions, boost exports, and attract global investment.
Key Points
A UK strategy to scale offshore wind, integrate smart grids and storage, cut emissions and drive investment and exports
✅ 30% energy target by 2030, backed by CfD support
✅ 250m industry investment and smart grid build-out
✅ Battery storage and interconnectors balance intermittency
Plans are afoot to make wind the UKs main power source for the first time in history amid ambitious targets to generate 30 percent of its total energy supply by 2030, up from 8 percent at present.
A recently inked deal will see the offshore wind industry invest 250 million into technology and infrastructure over the next 11 years, with the government committing up to 557 million in support, under a renewable energy auction that boosts wind and tidal projects, as part of its bid to lower carbon emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050.
Offshore wind investment is crucial for meeting decarbonisation targets while increasing energy production, says Dominic Szanto, Director, Energy and Infrastructure at JLL. The governments approach over the last seven years has been to promise support to the industry, provided that cost reduction targets were met. This certainty has led to the development of larger, more efficient wind turbines which means the cost of offshore wind energy is a third of what it was in 2012.
Boosting the wind industry
Offshore wind power has been gathering pace in the UK and has grown despite COVID-19 disruptions in recent years. Earlier this year, the Hornsea One wind farm, the worlds largest offshore generator which is located off the Yorkshire coast, started producing electricity. When fully operational in 2020, the project will supply energy to over a million homes, and a further two phases are planned over the coming decade.
Over 10 gigawatts of offshore wind either already has government support or is eligible to apply for it in the near future, following a 10 GW contract award that underscores momentum, representing over 30 billion of likely investment opportunities.
Capital is coming from European utility firms and increasingly from Asian strategic investors looking to learn from the UKs experience. The attractive government support mechanism means banks are keen to lend into the sector, says Szanto.
New investment in the UKs offshore wind sector will also help to counter the growing influence of China. The UK is currently the worlds largest offshore wind market, but by 2021 it will be outstripped by China.
Through its new deal, the government hopes to increase wind power exports fivefold to 2.6 billion per year by 2030, with the UKs manufacturing and engineering skills driving projects in growth markets in Europe and Asia and in developing countries supported by the World Bank support through financing and advisory programs.
Over the next two decades, theres a massive opportunity for the UK to maintain its industry leading position by designing, constructing, operating and financing offshore wind projects, says Szanto. Building on projects such as the Hywind project in Scotland, it could become a major export to countries like the USA and Japan, where U.S. lessons from the U.K. are informing policy and coastal waters are much deeper.
Wind-powered smart grids
As wind power becomes a major contributor to the UKs energy supply, which will be increasingly made up of renewable sources in coming decades, there are key infrastructure challenges to overcome.
A real challenge is that the UKs power generation is becoming far more decentralised, with smaller power stations such as onshore wind farms and solar parks and more prosumers residential houses with rooftop solar coupled with a significant rise in intermittent generation, says Szanto. The grid was never designed to manage energy use like that.
One potential part of the solution is to use offshore wind farms in other sites in European waters.
By developing connections between wind projects from neighbouring countries, it will create super-grids that will help mitigate intermittency issues, says Szanto.
More advanced energy storage batteries will also be key for when less energy is generated on still days. There is a growing need for batteries that can store large amounts of energy and smart technology to discharge that energy. Were going through a revolution where new technology companies are working to enable a much smarter grid.
Future smart grids, based on developing technology such as blockchain, might enable the direct trading of energy between generators and consumers, with algorithms that can manage many localised sources and, critically, ensure a smooth power supply.
Investors seeking a higher-yield market are increasingly turning to battery technology, Szanto says. In a future smart grid, for example, batteries could store electricity bought cheaply at low-usage times then sold at peak usage prices or be used to provide backup energy services to other companies.
Majors investing in the transition
Its not just new energy technology companies driving change; established oil and gas companies are accelerating spending on renewable energy. Shell has committed to $1-2 billion per year on clean energy technologies out of a $25-30 billion budget, while Equinor plans to spend 15-20 percent of its budget on renewables by 2030.
The oil and gas majors have the global footprint to deliver offshore wind projects in every country, says Szanto. This could also create co-investment opportunities for other investors in the sector especially as nascent wind markets such as the U.S., where the U.S. offshore wind timeline is still developing, and Japan evolve.
European energy giants, for example, have bid to build New Yorks first offshore wind project.
As offshore wind becomes a globalised sector, with a trillion-dollar market outlook emerging, the major fuel companies will have increasingly large roles. They have the resources to undertake the years-long, cost-intensive developments of wind projects, driven by a need for new business models as the world looks beyond carbon-based fuels, says Szanto.
Oil and gas heavyweights are also making wind, solar and energy storage acquisitions BP acquired solar developer Lightsource and car-charging network Chargemaster, while Shell spent $400 million on solar and battery companies.
The public perception is that renewable energy is niche, but its now a mainstream form of energy generation., concludes Szanto.
Every nation in the world is aligned in wanting a decarbonised future. In terms of electricity, that means renewable energy and for offshore wind energy, the outlook is extremely positive.
