Ordinance would darken businesses' overnight lights

Celtic Interconnector, a subsea electricity link between Ireland and France, connects EU grids via a high-voltage submarine cable, boosting security of supply, renewable integration, and cross-border trade with 700 MW capacity by 2026.

Key Points

A 700 MW subsea link between Ireland and France, boosting security, enabling trade, and supporting renewables.

✅ Approx. 600 km subsea cable from East Cork to Brittany

✅ 700 MW capacity; powers about 450,000 homes

✅ Financed by EIB, banks, CEF; Siemens Energy and Nexans

France and Ireland signed contracts on Friday to advance the Celtic Interconnector, a subsea electricity link to allow the exchange of electricity between the two EU countries. It will be the first interconnector between continental Europe and Ireland, as similar UK interconnector plans move forward in parallel. 

Representatives for Ireland’s electricity grid operator EirGrid and France’s grid operator RTE signed financial and technical agreements for the high-voltage submarine cable, mirroring developments like Maine’s approved transmission line in North America for cross-border power. The countries’ respective energy ministers witnessed the signing.

European commissioner for energy Kadri Simson said:

In the current energy market situation, marked by electricity price volatility, and the need to move away from imports of Russian fossil fuels, European energy infrastructure has become more important than ever.

The Celtic Interconnector is of paramount importance as it will end Ireland’s isolation from the Union’s power system, with parallels to Cyprus joining the electricity highway in the region, and ensure a reliable high-capacity link improving the security of electricity supply and supporting the development of renewables in both Ireland and France.

EirGrid and RTE signed €800 million ($827 million) worth of financing agreements with Barclays, BNP Paribas, Danske Bank, and the European Investment Bank, similar to the Lake Erie Connector investment that blends public and private capital.

In 2019, the project was awarded a Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) grant worth €530.7 million to support construction works and align with a broader push for electrification in Europe under climate strategies. The CEF program also provided €8.3 million for the Celtic Interconnector’s feasibility study and initial design and pre-consultation.

Siemens Energy will build converter stations in both countries, and Paris-based global cable company Nexans will design and install a 575-km-long cable for the project.

The cable will run between East Cork, on Ireland’s southern coast, and northwestern France’s Brittany coast and will connect into substations at Knockraha in Ireland and La Martyre in France.

The Celtic Interconnector, which is expected to be operational by 2026, will be approximately 600 km (373 miles) long and have a capacity of 700 MW, similar to cross-border initiatives such as Quebec-to-New York power exports expected in 2025, which is enough to power 450,000 households.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

New Brunswick Small Modular Reactors promise clean energy, jobs, and economic growth, say NB Power, ARC Nuclear, and Moltex Energy; critics cite cost overruns, nuclear waste risks, market viability, and reliance on government funding.

Key Points

Compact reactors proposed in NB to deliver low-carbon power and jobs; critics warn of costs, waste, and market risks.

✅ Promised jobs, exports, and net-zero support via NB Power partnerships

✅ Critics cite cost overruns, nuclear waste, and weak market demand

✅ Government funding pivotal; ARC and Moltex advance licensing

When Mike Holland talks about small modular nuclear reactors, he sees dollar signs.

When the Green Party hears about them, they see danger signs.

The loquacious Progressive Conservative minister of energy development recently quoted NB Power's eye-popping estimates of the potential economic impact of the reactors: thousands of jobs and a $1 billion boost to the provincial economy.

"New Brunswick is positioned to not only participate in this opportunity, but to be a world leader in the SMR field," Holland said in the legislature last month.

'Huge risk' nuclear deal could let Ontario push N.B. aside, says consultant
'Many issues' with modular nuclear reactors says environmental lawyer
Green MLAs David Coon and Kevin Arseneau responded cheekily by ticking off the Financial and Consumer Services Commission's checklist on how to spot a scam.

Is the sales pitch from a credible source? Is the windfall being promised by a reputable institution? Is the risk reasonable?

For small nuclear reactors, they said, the answer to all those questions is no. 

"The last thing we need to do is pour more public money down the nuclear-power drain," Coon said, reminding MLAs of the Point Lepreau refurbishment project that went $1 billion over budget.

The Greens aside, New Brunswick politicians have embraced small modular reactors as part of a broader premiers' nuclear initiative to develop SMR technology, which they say can both create jobs and help solve the climate crisis.

Smaller and cheaper, supporters say
They're "small" because, depending on the design, they would generate from three to 300 megawatts of electricity, less than, for example, Point Lepreau's 660 megawatts.

It's the modular design that is supposed to make them more affordable, as explained in next-gen nuclear guides, with components manufactured elsewhere, sometimes in existing factories, then shipped and assembled. 

Under Brian Gallant, the Liberals handed $10 million to two Saint John companies working on SMRs, ARC Nuclear and Moltex Energy.

Greens point to previous fiascoes
The Greens and other opponents of nuclear power fear SMRS are the latest in a long line of silver-bullet fiascoes, from the $23 million spent on the Bricklin in 1975 to $63.4 million in loans and loan guarantees to the Atcon Group a decade ago.

"It seems that [ARC and Moltex] have been targeting New Brunswick for another big handout ... because it's going to take billions of dollars to build these things, if they ever get off the drawing board," said Susan O'Donnell, a University of New Brunswick researcher.

O'Donnell, who studies technology adoption in communities, is part of a small new group called the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development formed this year to oppose SMRs.

"What we really need here is a reasonable discussion about the pros and cons of it," she said.

Government touts economic spinoffs
According to the Higgs government's throne speech last month, if New Brunswick companies can secure just one per cent of the Canadian market for small reactors, the province would see $190 million in revenue. 

The figures come from a study conducted for NB Power by University of Moncton economist Pierre-Marcel Desjardins.

But a four-page public summary does not include any sales projections and NB Power did not provide them to CBC News. 

"What we didn't see was a market analysis," O'Donnell said. "How viable is the market? … They're all based on a hypothetical market that probably doesn't exist."

O'Donnell said her group asked for the full report but was told it's confidential because it contains sensitive commercial information.

Holland said he's confident there will be buyers. 

"It won't be hard to find communities that will be looking for a cost effective, affordable, safe alternative to generate their electricity and do it in a way that emits zero emissions," he said.

SMRs come in different sizes and while some proponents talk about using "micro" reactors to provide electricity to remote northern First Nations communities, ARC and Moltex plan larger models to sell to power utilities looking to shift away from coal and gas.

"We have utilities and customers across Canada, where Ontario's first SMR groundbreaking has occurred already, across the United States, across Asia and Europe saying they desperately want a technology like this," said Moltex's Saint John-based CEO for North America Rory O'Sullivan. 

"The market is screaming for this product," he said, adding "all of the utilities" in Canada are interested in Moltex's reactors

ARC's CEO Norm Sawyer is more specific, guessing 30 per cent of his SMR sales will be in Atlantic Canada, 30 per cent in Ontario, where Darlington SMR plans are advancing, and 40 per cent in Alberta and Saskatchewan — all provincial power grids.

O'Donnell said it's an important question because without a large number of guaranteed sales, the high cost of manufacturing SMRs would make the initiative a money-loser. 

The cost of building the world's only functioning SMR, in Russia, was four times what was expected. 

An Australian government agency said initial cost estimates for such major projects "are often initially too low" and can "overrun." 

Up-front costs can be huge
University of British Columbia physicist M.V. Ramana, who has authored studies on the economics of nuclear power, said SMRs face the same financial reality as any large-scale manufacturing.

"You're going to spend a huge amount of money on the basic fixed costs" at the outset, he said, with costs per unit becoming more viable only after more units are built and sold. 

He estimates a company would have to build and sell more than 700 SMRs to break even, and said there are not enough buyers for that to happen. 

But Sawyer said those estimates don't take into account technological advances.

"A lot of what's being said ... is really based on old technology," he said, estimating ARC would be viable even if it sold an amount of reactors in the low double digits. 

O'Sullivan agrees.

"In fact, just the first one alone looks like it will still be economical," he said. "In reality, you probably need a few … but you're talking about one or two, maximum three [to make a profit] because you don't need these big factories."

'Paper designs' prove nothing, says expert
Ramana doesn't buy it. 

"These are all companies that have been started by somebody who's been in the nuclear industry for some years, has a bright idea, finds an angel investor who's given them a few million dollars," he said.

"They have a paper design, or a Power Point design. They have not built anything. They have not tested anything. To go from that point … to a design that can actually be constructed on the field is an enormous amount of work." 

Both CEOs acknowledge the skepticism about SMRs.

'The market is screaming for this product,' said Moltex’s Saint John-based CEO for North America, Rory O’Sullivan. (Brian Chisholm, CBC)
"I understand New Brunswick has had its share of good investments and its share of what we consider questionable investments," said Sawyer, who grew up in Rexton.

But he said ARC's SMR is based on a long-proven technology and is far past the on-paper design stage "so you reduce the risk." 

Moltex is now completing the first phase of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's review of its design, a major hurdle. ARC completed that phase last year.

But, Ramana said there are problems with both designs. Moltex's molten salt model has had "huge technical challenges" elsewhere while ARC's sodium-cooled system has encountered "operational difficulties."

Ottawa says nuclear is needed for climate goals
The most compelling argument for looking at SMRs may be Ottawa's climate change goals, and international moves like the U.K.'s green industrial revolution plan point to broader momentum.  

The national climate plan requires NB Power to phase out burning coal at its Belledune generating station by 2030. It's scrambling to find a replacement source of electricity.

The Trudeau government's throne speech in October promised to "support investments in renewable energy and next-generation clean energy and technology solutions."

And federal Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Regan told CBC earlier this year that he's "very excited" about SMRs and has called nuclear key to climate goals in Canada as well.

"We have not seen a model where we can get to net-zero emissions by 2050 without nuclear,"  he said.

O'Donnell said while nuclear power doesn't emit greenhouse gases, it's hardly a clean technology because of the spent nuclear fuel waste. 

Government support is key 
She also wonders why, if SMRs make so much sense, ARC and Moltex are relying so much on government money rather than private capital.

Holland said "the vast majority" of funding for the two companies "has to come from private sector investments, who will be very careful to make sure they get a return on that investment."

Sawyer said ARC has three dollars for every dollar it has received from the province, and General Electric has a minority ownership stake in its U.S.-based parent company.

O'Sullivan said Moltex has attracted $5 million from a European engineering firm and $6 million from "the first-ever nuclear crowdfunding campaign." 

But he said for new technologies, including nuclear power, "you need government to show policy support.

"Nuclear technology has always been developed by governments around the world. This is a very new change to have an industry come in and lead this, so private investors can't take the risk to do that on their own," he said. 

So far, Ottawa hasn't put up any funding for ARC or Moltex. During the provincial election campaign, Higgs implied federal money was imminent, but there's been no announcement in the almost three months since then.

Last month the federal government announced $20 million for Terrestrial Energy, an Ontario company working on SMRs, alongside OPG's commitment to SMRs in the province, underscoring momentum.

"We know we have the best technology pitch," O'Sullivan said. "There's others that are slightly more advanced than us, but we have the best overall proposition and we think that's going to win out at the end of the day."

But O'Donnell said her group plans to continue asking questions about SMRs. 

"I think what we really need is to have an honest conversation about what these are so that New Brunswickers can have all the facts on the table," she said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Vogtle Units 3 and 4 are Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors under construction in Waynesboro, Georgia, led by Southern Nuclear, Georgia Power, and Bechtel, adding 2,234 MWe of carbon-free baseload power with DOE loan guarantees.

Key Points

Vogtle Units 3 and 4 are AP1000 reactors in Georgia delivering 2,234 MWe of low-carbon baseload electricity.

✅ Each unit: Westinghouse AP1000, 1,117 MWe capacity.

✅ Managed by Southern Nuclear, built by Bechtel.

✅ DOE loan guarantees support financing and risk.

Construction is ongoing for two new nuclear reactors, Units 3 and 4, at Georgia Power's Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Waynesboro, Ga. the first new nuclear reactors to be constructed in the United Stated in 30 years, mirroring a new U.S. reactor startup that will provide electricity to more than 500,000 homes and businesses once operational.

Construction on Unit 3 started in March 2013 with an expected completion date of November 2021. For Unit 4, work began in November 2013 with a targeted delivery date of November 2022. Each unit houses a Westinghouse AP1000 (Advanced Passive) nuclear reactor that can generate about 1,117 megawatts (MWe). The reactor pressure vessels and steam generators are from Doosan, a South Korean firm.

The pouring of concrete was delayed to 2013 due to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission issuing a license amendment which permitted the use of higher-strength concrete for the foundations of the reactors, eliminating the need to make additional modifications to reinforcing steel bar.

The work is occurring in the middle of an operational nuclear facility, and the construction area contains many cranes and storage areas for the prefabricated parts being installed. Space also is needed for various trucks making deliveries, especially concrete.

The reactor buildings, circular in shape, are several hundred feet apart from one another and each one has an annex building and a turbine island structure. The estimated total price for the project is expected in the $18.7 billion range. Bechtel Corporation, which built Units 1 and 2, was brought in January 2017 to take over the construction that is being overseen by Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNOC), which operates the plant.

The project will require the equivalent of 3,375 miles of sidewalk; the towers for Units 3 and 4 are 60 stories high and have two million pound CA modules; the office space for both units is 300,000 sq. ft.; and there are more than 8,000 construction workers over 30 percent being military veterans. The new reactors will create 800 permanent jobs.

Southern Nuclear and Georgia Power took over management of the construction project in 2017 after Westinghouse's Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The plant, built in the late 1980s with Unit 1 becoming operational in 1987 and Unit 2 in 1989, is jointly owned by Georgia Power (45.7 percent), Oglethorpe Power Corporation (30 percent), Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (22.7 percent) and Dalton Utilities (1.6 percent).

"Significant progress has been made on the construction of Vogtle 3 and 4 since the transition to Southern Nuclear following the Westinghouse bankruptcy," said Paul Bowers, Chairman, President and CEO of Georgia Power. "While there will always be challenges in building the first new nuclear units in this country in more than 30 years, we remain focused on reducing project risk and maintaining the current project momentum in order to provide our customers with a new carbon-free energy source that will put downward pressure on rates for 60 to 80 years."

The Vogtle and Hatch nuclear plants currently provide more than 20 percent of Georgia's annual electricity needs. Vogtle will be the only four-unit nuclear facility in the country. The energy is needed to meet the rising demand for electricity as the state expects to have more than four million new residents by 2030.

The plant's expansion is the largest ongoing construction project in Georgia and one of the largest in the state's history, while comparable refurbishments such as the Bruce reactor overhaul progress in Canada. Last March an agreement was signed to secure approximately $1.67 billion in additional Department of Energy loan guarantees. Georgia Power previously secured loan guarantees of $3.46 billion.

The signing highlighted the placement of the top of the containment vessel for Unit 3, echoing the Hinkley Point C roof lift seen in the U.K., which signified that all modules and large components had been placed inside it. The containment vessel is a high-integrity steel structure that houses critical plant components. The top head is 130 ft. in diameter, 37 ft. tall, and weighs nearly 1.5 million lbs. It is comprised of 58 large plates, welded together with each more than 1.5 in. thick.

"From the very beginning, public and private partners have stood with us," said Southern Company Chairman, President and CEO Tom Fanning. "Everyone involved in the project remains focused on sustaining our momentum."

Bechtel has completed more than 80 percent of the project, and the major milestones for 2019 have been met, aligning with global nuclear milestones reported across the industry, including setting the Unit 4 pressurizer inside the containment vessel last February, which will provide pressure control inside the reactor coolant system. More specialized construction workers, including craft labor, have been hired via the addition of approximately 300 pipefitters and 350 electricians since November 2018. Another 500 to 1,000 craft workers have been more recently brought in.

A key accomplishment occurred last December when 1,300 cu. yds. of concrete were poured inside the Unit 4 containment vessel during a 21-hour operation that involved more than 100 workers and more than 120 truckloads of concrete. In 2018 alone, more than 23,000 cu. yds. of concrete were poured part of the nearly 600,000 cu. yds. placed since construction started, and the installation of more than 16,200 yds. of piping.

Progress also has been solid for Unit 3. Last January the integrated head package (IHP) was set inside the containment vessel. The IHP, weighing 475,000 lbs. and standing 48 ft. tall, combines several separate components in one assembly and allows the rapid removal of the reactor vessel head during a refueling outage. One month earlier, the placement of the third and final ring for containment vessel, and the placement of the fourth and final reactor coolant pump (RCP, 375,000 lbs.), were executed.

"Weighing just under 2 million pounds, approximately 38 feet high and with a diameter of 130 feet, the ring is the fourth of five sections that make up the containment vessel," stated a Georgia Power press release. "The RCPs are mounted to the steam generator and serve a critical part of the reactor coolant system, circulating water from the steam generator to the reactor vessel, allowing sufficient heat transfer for safe plant operation. In the same month, the Unit 3 shield building with additional double-decker panels, was placed.

According to a construction update from Georgia Power, a total of eight six-panel sections have been placed, with each one measuring 20 ft. tall and 114 ft. wide, weighing up to 300,000 lbs. To date, more than half of the shield building panels have been placed for Unit 3. The shield building panels, fabricated in Newport News, Va., provide structural support to the containment cooling water supply and protect the containment vessel, which houses the reactor vessel.

Building the reactors is challenging due to the design, reflecting lessons from advanced reactors now being deployed. Unit 3 will have 157 fuel assemblies, with each being a little over 14 ft. long. They are crucial to fuelling the reactor, and once the initial fueling is completed, nearly one-third of the fuel assemblies will be replaced for each re-fuelling operation. In addition to the Unit 3 containment top, placement crews installed three low-pressure turbine rotors and the generator rotor inside the unit's turbine building.

Last November, major systems testing got underway at Unit 3 as the site continues to transition from construction toward system operations. The Open Vessel Testing will demonstrate how water flows from the key safety systems into the reactor vessel ensuring the paths are not blocked or constricted.

"This is a significant step on our path towards operations," said Glen Chick, Vogtle 3 & 4 construction executive vice president. "[This] will prepare the unit for cold hydro testing and hot functional testing next year both critical tests required ahead of initial fuel load."

It also confirms that the pumps, motors, valves, pipes and other components function as designed, a reminder of how issues like the South Carolina plant leak can disrupt operations when systems falter.

"It follows the Integrated Flush process, which began in August, to push water through system piping and mechanical components that feed into the Unit 3 reactor vessel and reactor coolant loops for the first time," stated a press release. "Significant progress continues ... including the placement of the final reinforced concrete portion of the Unit 4 shield building. The 148-cubic yard placement took eight hours to complete and, once cured, allows for the placement of the first course of double-decker panels. Also, the upper inner casing for the Unit 3 high-pressure turbine has been placed, signifying the completion of the centerline alignment, which will mean minimal vibration and less stress on the rotors during operations, resulting in more efficient power generation."

The turbine rotors, each weighing approximately 200 tons and rotating at 1,800 revolutions per-minute, pass steam through the turbine blades to power the generator.

The placement of the middle containment vessel ring for Unit 4 was completed in early July. This required several cranes to work in tandem as the 51-ft. tall ring weighed 2.4 million lbs. and had dozens of individual steel plates that were fabricated on site.

A key part of the construction progress was made in late July with the order of the first nuclear fuel load for Unit 3, which consists of 157 fuel assemblies with each measuring 14 ft. tall.

On May 7, Unit 3 was energized (permanently powered), which was essential to perform the testing for the unit. Prior to this, the plant equipment had been running on temporary construction power.

"[This] is a major first step in transitioning the project from construction toward system operations," Chick said.

Construction of the north side of the Unit 3 Auxiliary Building (AB) has progressed with both the floor and roof modules being set. Substantial work also occurred on the steel and concrete that forms the remaining walls and the north AB roof at elevation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hedonistic Sustainability turns Copenhagen's ARC waste-to-energy plant into a public playground, blending ski slope, climbing wall, and trails with carbon-neutral heating, renewables, circular economy design, and green growth for climate action and liveability.

Key Points

A design approach fusing public recreation with clean-energy infrastructure to drive carbon-neutral, livable urban growth.

✅ Waste-to-energy plant doubles as recreation hub

✅ Supports carbon-neutral heating and renewables

✅ Stakeholder-driven, scalable urban climate model

“We call it hedonistic sustainability,” says Jacob Simonsen of the decision to put an artificial ski slope on the roof of the £485m Amager Resource Centre (Arc), Copenhagen’s cutting-edge new waste-to-energy power plant that feeds the city’s district heating network as well. “It’s not just good for the environment, it’s good for life.”

Skiing is just one of the activities that Simonsen, Arc’s chief executive, and Bjarke Ingels, its lead architect, hope will enhance the latest jewel in Copenhagen’s sustainability crown. The incinerator building also incorporates hiking and running trails, a street fitness gym and the world’s highest outdoor climbing wall, an 85-metre “natural mountain” complete with overhangs that rises the full height of the main structure.

In Copenhagen, green transformation goes hand-in-hand with job creation, a growing economy and a better quality of life

Frank Jensen, lord mayor

It’s all part of Copenhagen’s plan to be net carbon-neutral by 2025. Even now, after a summer that saw wildfires ravagethe Arctic Circle and ice sheets in Greenland suffer near-record levels of melt, the goal seems ambitious. In 2009, when the project was formulated, it was positively revolutionary.

“A green, smart, carbon-neutral city,” declared the cover of the climate action plan, aligning with a broader electric planet vision, before detailing the scale of the challenge: 100 new wind turbines; a 20% reduction in both heat and commercial electricity consumption; 75% of all journeys to be by bike, on foot, or by public transport; the biogas-ification of all organic waste; 60,000 sq metres of new solar panels; and 100% of the city’s heating requirements to be met by renewables.

Radical and far-reaching, the scheme dared to rethink the very infrastructure underpinning the city. There’s still not a climate project anywhere else in the world that comes close, even as leaders elsewhere champion a fully renewable grid by 2030.

And, so far, it’s working. CO2 emissions have been reduced by 42% since 2005, and while challenges around mobility and energy consumption remain (new technologies such as better batteries and carbon capture are being implemented, and global calls for clean electricity investment grow), the city says it is on track to achieve its ultimate goal.

More significant still is that Copenhagen has achieved this while continuing to grow in traditional economic terms. Even as some commentators insist that nothing short of a total rethink of free-market economics and corporate structures is required to stave off global catastrophe, the Danish capital’s carbon transformation has happened alongside a 25% growth in its economy over two decades. Copenhagen’s experience will be a model for other world cities as the global energy transition unfolds.

The sentiment that lies behind Arc’s conception as a multi-use public good – “hedonistic sustainability” – is echoed by Bo Asmus Kjeldgaard, former mayor of Copenhagen for the environment and the man originally tasked, back in 2010, with making the plan a reality.

“We combined life quality with sustainability and called it ‘liveability’,” says Kjeldgaard, now CEO of his own climate adaptation company, Greenovation. “We succeeded in building a good narrative around this, one that everybody could believe in.”

The idea was first floated in the late 1990s, when the newly elected Kjeldgaard had a vision of Copenhagen as the environmental capital of Europe. His enthusiasm ran into political intransigence, however, and despite some success, a lack of budget meant most of his work became “just another branding exercise – it was greenwashing”.

We’re such a rich country – change should be easy for us

Claus Nielsen, furniture maker and designer

But after stints as mayor of family and the labour market, and children and young people, he ended up back at environment in 2010 with renewed determination and, crucially, a broader mandate from the city council. “I said: ‘This time, we have to do it right,’” he recalls, “so we made detailed, concrete plans for every area, set the carbon target, and demanded the money and the manpower to make it a reality.”

He brought on board more than 200 stakeholders, from businesses to academia to citizen representatives, and helped them develop 22 specific business plans and 65 separate projects. So far the plan appears on track: there has been a 15% reduction in heat consumption, 66% of all trips in the city are now by bike, on foot or public transport, and 51% of heat and power comes from renewable electricity sources.

The onus placed on ordinary Copenhageners to walk and cycle more, pay higher taxes (especially on cars) and put up with the inconvenience of infrastructure construction has generally been met with understanding and good grace. And while some people remain critical of the fact that Copenhagen airport is not factored into the CO2 calculations – it lies beyond the city’s boundaries – and grumble about precise definitions and formulae, dissent has been rare.

This relative lack of nimbyism and carping about change can, says Frank Jensen, the city’s lord mayor, be traced to longstanding political traditions.

“Caring for the environment and taking responsibility for society in general has been an integral part of the upbringing of many Danes,” he says. “Moreover, there is a general awareness that climate change now calls for immediate, ambitious and collective action.” A 2018 survey by Concito, a thinktank, found that such action was a top priority for voters.

Jensen is keen to stress the cooperative nature of the plan and says “our visions have to be grounded in the everyday lives of people to be politically feasible”. Indeed, involving so many stakeholders, and allowing them to actively help shape both the ends and the means, has been key to the plan’s success so far and the continued goodwill it enjoys. “It’s so important to note that we [the authorities] cannot do this alone,” says Jørgen Abildgaard, Copenhagen’s executive climate programme director.

Many businesses around the world have typically been reluctant to embrace sustainability when a dip in profits or inconvenience might be the result, but not in Copenhagen. Martin Manthorpe, director of strategy, business development and public affairs at NCC, one of Scandinavia’s largest construction and industrial groups, was brought in early on by Abildgaard to represent industry on the municipality’s climate panel, and to facilitate discussions with the wider business community. He thinks there are several reasons why.

“The Danes have a trading mindset, meaning ‘What will I have to sell tomorrow?’ is just as important as ‘What am I producing today?’” he says. “Also, many big Danish companies are still ultimately family-owned, so the culture leans more towards long-term thinking.”

It is, he says, natural for business to be concerned with issues around sustainability and be willing to endure short-term pain: “To do responsible, long-term business, you need to see yourself as part of the larger puzzle that is called ‘society’.”

Furthermore, in Denmark climate change denial is given extremely short shrift. “We believe in the science,” says Anders Haugaard, a local entrepreneur. “Why wouldn’t you? We’re told sustainability brings only benefits and we’ve got no reason to be suspicious.”

“No one would dare argue against the environment,” says his friend Claus Nielsen, a furniture maker and designer. “We’re such a rich country – change should be easy for us.” Nielsen talks about how enlightened his kids are – “my 11-year-old daughter is now a flexitarian ” – and says that nowadays he mainly buys organic; Haugaard doesn’t see a problem with getting rid of petrol cars (the whole country is aiming to be fossil fuel-free by 2050 as the EU electricity use by 2050 is expected to double).

Above all, there’s a belief that sustainability need not make the city poorer: that innovation and “green growth” can be lucrative in and of themselves. “In Copenhagen, green transformation goes hand-in-hand with job creation, a growing economy and a better quality of life,” says Jensen. “We have also shown that it’s possible to combine this transition with economic growth and market opportunities for businesses, and I think that other countries can learn from our example.”

Besides, as Jensen notes, there is little alternative, and even less time: “National states have failed to take enough responsibility, but cities have the power and will to create concrete solutions. We need to start accelerating their implementation – we need to act now.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

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.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

PLREDA 2019 advances solar, wind, and geothermal on public lands, guiding DOI siting, improving transmission access, streamlining permitting, sharing revenues, and funding conservation to meet climate goals while protecting wildlife and recreation.

Key Points

A bipartisan bill to expand renewables on public lands fund conservation, speed permitting and advance U.S. climate aims.

✅ Targets 25 GW of public-land renewables by 2025

✅ Establishes wildlife conservation and recreation access funds

✅ Streamlines siting, transmission, and equitable revenue sharing

The Senate unveiled its version of a bill the House introduced in July to help the U.S. realize the extraordinary renewable energy potential of our shared public lands.

Senator Martha McSally (R-AZ) and a bipartisan coalition of western Senators introduced a Senate version of draft legislation that will help the Department of the Interior tap the renewable energy potential of our shared public lands. The western Senators represent Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, and Idaho.

Elsewhere in the West, lawmakers have moved to modernize Oregon hydropower to streamline licensing, signaling broad regional momentum.

The Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act of 2019 (PLREDA) facilitates siting of solar, wind, and geothermal energy projects on public lands, boosts funding for conservation, and promotes ambitious renewable energy targets that will help the U.S. take action on the climate crisis.

Like the House version, the Senate bill enjoys strong bi-partisan support and industry endorsement. The Senate version makes few notable changes to the bill introduced in July by Representatives Mike Levin (D-CA) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ). It includes:

• A commitment to enhance natural resource conservation and stewardship via the establishment of a fish and wildlife conservation fund that would support conservation and restoration work and other important stewardship activities.
• An ambitious renewable energy production goal for the Department of the Interior to permit a total of 25 gigawatts of renewable energy on public lands by 2025—nearly double the current generating capacity of projects currently on our public lands.
• Establishment of criteria for identifying appropriate areas for renewable energy development using the 2012 Western Solar Plan as a model. Key criteria to be considered include access to transmission lines and likelihood of avoiding or minimizing conflict with wildlife habitat, cultural resources, and other resources and values.
• Improved public access to Federal lands for recreational uses via funds made available for preserving and improving access, including enhancing public access to places that are currently inaccessible or restricted.
• Sharing of revenues raised from renewable energy development on public lands in an equitable manner that benefits local communities near new renewable energy projects and supports the efficient administration of permitting requirements.
• Creating incentives for renewable energy development by giving Interior the authority to reduce rental rates and capacity fees to ensure new renewable energy development remains competitive in the marketplace.

NRDC strongly supports this legislation, and we will do our utmost to facilitate its passage into law. There is no question that in our era of runaway climate change, legislation that balances energy production with environmental conservation and stewardship of our public lands is critical.

PLREDA takes a balanced approach to using our public lands to help lead the U.S. toward a low-carbon future, as states pursue 100% renewable electricity goals nationwide. The bill outlines a commonsense approach for federal agencies to play a meaningful role in combatting climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News