Alberta and Canada need to become recognized world leaders in carbon capture and storage to garner respect from global energy players, and the United States in particular, as our southern neighbour moves rapidly toward stricter environmental legislation, an environmental expert said.
The U.S. needs the technology to reduce its own emissions, and Canada can get on its radar screen by showing our expertise, said Robert Page, TransAlta professor of environmental management and sustainability at the University of Calgary.
The exposure will be crucial as the U.S. moves to firm and implement its Clean Energy and Security Act, which will affect the cross-border trade of energy and manufacturing products.
“If we here in Calgary can build a world leadership on carbon capture and storage technology and, in a wider sense, non-conventional oil technology, we have huge opportunities,” Page said at Calgary’s Petroleum Club.
“We would then have a bargaining position because we would be a respected party at the table. That is part of what we are trying to do.”
Most Americans, politicians included, are unaware Canada supplies the bulk of U.S. energy imports, about 70 per cent of its oil and gas volumes, and treat its northern neighbour accordingly, Page pointed out. And, it behooves Ottawa and Alberta to pay close attention to the ever-evolving Waxman and Markey bill that has grown to a bureaucratic nightmare 932 pages long, from an original 600 pages at the end of March, he said.
The plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions includes aggressive targets and segments dealing with cap and trade. It allows domestic and international offsets, and banking and borrowing credits.
The credits themselves originally were to be auctioned across the board, but intense lobbying by certain industries has seen the premise change. Despite the changes, the U.S. government stands to gain hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue from the auctions, Page said.
There also are protectionist elements in the bill that have raised fears of conflicts similar to the softwood lumber battle, which saw the U.S. impose levies on Canadian wood. Environmental protectionism could hit exports of oilsands, as well as eastern manufactured products like cement, steel and other products that have a high electricity or energy content in them.
“The implication of the U.S. carbon lobby is that we could see reduced netbacks for our Canadian producers,” former Alberta energy minister Murray Smith told the Herald.
“The real point of the matter is we can’t get out ahead of cap and trade. We’ll wait and see what comes out of it, but we can’t penalize ourselves in terms of capitalizing from that market that we deliver so much product to.”
Smith believes the West should be considering new markets in Eastern Canada, which imports more than 1.3 million barrels of oil per day, through existing pipelines and retrofitting refineries.
“If we can get the transportation of the product into that market and be competitive on a netback basis, there’s no reason we can’t put Alberta crude into those refineries,” he said.
For Greg Stringham, vice-president at the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, itÂ’s a waiting game to see how Canadian policies evolve in response to the U.S. carbon push.
“We’ve heard a lot of discussion about cap and trade versus carbon tax going back and forth, but from our industry’s perspective it’s all about the price of carbon, no matter how it gets set,” Stringham said. “There are pros and cons to each of those, but both of them end up in a carbon price, which then results in a price signal which allows that behaviour to happen. And that behaviour and the technologies that apply are the real key.”
Bruce March, chairman, chief executive and president of Imperial Oil Ltd., said his companyÂ’s announcement Monday that it would go ahead with the $8-billion Kearl oilsands project was made in spite of uncertainty on the environment.
“If you sat back and you looked for certainty on climate change regulations, I’m not sure when you’d make a decision. You could probably wait for years,” he said during an investor day presentation broadcast on the Internet.
“When you look at the long-term needs in our energy outlook, when you look at the depletion of conventional oil and gas, it just didn’t seem like the right thing to do to sit on our hands forever.”
He said Imperial was concerned emissions reduction targets would be hard to achieve and would reduce economic output. And on the subject of carbon capture and storage (CCS), March noted the technology “takes tremendous energy to capture and tremendous energy to store it in the ground.”
Page agreed the biggest challenge facing industry is integrating carbon costs into “absolutely everything” it does.
“If we want access to the U.S. market we must move on the environmental issues as defined by the Americans. And what that means is much more investment, taking more ambitious targets in Canada, and move part way so we’re credible in the U.S. market,” Page said.
And committing to as-yet-uncommercial technology such as carbon storage is a financial risk many corporations are grappling with.
“Technology has to be the answer,” said James Brown, director of climate change with Petro-Canada. “One of the challenges we have is any time you employ new technology like CCS or new in situ techniques, there is a risk it won’t work.”
Petro-Canada had looked at carbon capture and storage for its oilsands upgrader, but the project was put on the back burner because of costs, he noted.
Germany renewable energy milestone 2019 saw wind, solar, hydropower, and biomass outproduce coal and nuclear, as low gas prices and high CO2 costs under the EU ETS reshaped the electricity mix, per Fraunhofer ISE.
Key Points
It marks H1 2019 when renewables supplied 47.3% of Germany's electricity, surpassing coal and nuclear.
✅ Driven by high CO2 prices and cheap natural gas
✅ Wind and solar output rose; coal generation declined sharply
✅ Flexible gas plants outcompeted inflexible coal units
In Lippendorf, Saxony, the energy supplier EnBW is temporarily taking part of a coal-fired power plant offline. Not because someone ordered it — it simply wasn't paying off. Gas prices are low, CO2 prices are high, and with many hours of sunshine and wind, renewable methods are producing a great deal of electricity as part of Germany's energy transition now reshaping operations. And in the first half of the year there was plenty of sun and wind.
The result was a six-month period in which renewable energy sources, a trend echoed by the EU wind and solar record across the bloc, produced more electricity than coal and nuclear power plants together. For the first time 47.3% of the electricity consumers used came from renewable sources, while 43.4% came from coal-fired and nuclear power plants.
In addition to solar and wind power, renewable sources also include hydropower and biomass. Gas supplied 9.3%, reflecting how renewables are crowding out gas across European power markets, while the remaining 0.4% came from other sources, such as oil, according to figures published by the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems in July.
Fabian Hein from the think tank Agora Energiewende stresses that the situation is only a snapshot in time, with grid expansion woes still shaping outcomes. For example, the first half of 2019 was particularly windy and wind power production rose by around 20% compared to the first half of 2018.
Electricity production from solar panels rose by 6%, natural gas by 10%, while the share of nuclear power in German electricity consumption has remained virtually unchanged despite a nuclear option debate in climate policy.
Coal, on the other hand, declined. Black coal energy production fell by 30% compared to the first half of 2018, lignite fell by 20%. Some coal-fired power plants were even taken off the grid, even as coal still provides about a third of Germany's electricity. It is difficult to say whether this was an effect of the current market situation or whether this is simply part of long-term planning, says Hein.
Activists storm German mine in anti-coal protest
It is clear, however, that an increased CO2 price has made the ongoing generation of electricity from coal more expensive. Gas-fired power plants also emit CO2, but less than coal-fired power plants. They are also more efficient and that's why gas-fired power plants are not so strongly affected by the CO2 price
The price is determined at a European level and covers power plants and energy intensive industries in Europe. Other areas, such as heating or transport are not covered by the CO2 price scheme. Since a reform of CO2 emissions trading in 2017, the price has risen sharply. Whereas in September 2016 it was just over €5 ($5.6), by the end of June 2019 it had climbed to over €26.
Ups and downs
Gas as a raw material is generally more expensive than coal. But coal-fired power plants are more expensive to build. This is why operators want to run them continuously. In times of high demand, and therefore high prices, gas-fired power plants are generally started up, as seen when European power demand hit records during recent heatwaves, since it is worth it at these times.
Gas-fired power plants can be flexibly ramped up and down. Coal-fired power plants take 11 hours or longer to get going. That's why they can't be switched on quickly for short periods when prices are high, like gas-fired power plants. In the first half of the year, however, coal-fired power plants were also ramped up and down more often because it was not always worthwhile to let the power plant run around the clock.
Because gas prices were particularly low in the first half of 2019, some gas-fired power plants were more profitable than coal-fired plants. On June 29, 2019, the gas price at the Dutch trading point TTF was around €10 per megawatt hour. A year earlier, it had been almost €20. This is partly due to the relatively mild winter, as there is still a lot of gas in reserve, confirmed a spokesman for the Federal Association of the Energy and Water Industries (BDEW). There are also several new export terminals for liquefied natural gas. Additionally, weaker growth and trade wars are slowing demand for gas. A lot of gas comes to Europe, where prices are still comparatively high, reported the Handelsblatt newspaper.
The increase in wind and solar power and the decline in nuclear power have also reduced CO2 emissions. In the first half of 2019, electricity generation emitted around 15% less CO2 than in the same period last year, reported BDEW. However, the association demands that the further expansion of renewable energies should not be hampered. The target of 65% renewable energy can only be achieved if the further expansion of renewable energy sources is accelerated.
Hertel-New York Interconnection delivers Hydro-Quebec renewable energy via a cross-border transmission line to New York City by 2025, supplying 1,250 MW through underground and underwater routes under a 25-year contract.
Key Points
A cross-border line delivering 1,250 MW of Hydro-Quebec hydropower to New York City via underground routes.
✅ 1,250 MW clean power to NYC by 2025
✅ 56.1 km underground, 1.6 km underwater in Quebec
✅ 25-year contract; Mohawk partnership revenue
Hydro-Quebec announced Thursday it has chosen the route for the Hertel-New York interconnection line, which will begin construction in the spring of 2023 in Quebec.
The project will deliver 1,250 megawatts of Quebec hydroelectricity to New York City starting in 2025, even as a recent electricity shortage report warns about rising demand at home.
It's a 25-year contract for Hydro-Quebec, the largest export contract for the province-owned company, and comes as hydrogen production investments gain traction in Eastern Canada.
The Crown corporation has not disclosed potential revenues from the project, but Premier François Legault mentioned on social media last September that a deal in principle worth more than $20 billion over 25 years was in the works.
The route includes a 56.1-kilometre underground and a 1.6-kilometre underwater section, similar to the Lake Erie Connector project planned under Lake Erie.
Eight municipalities in the Montérégie region will be affected: La Prairie, Saint-Philippe, Saint-Jacques-le-Mineur, Saint-Édouard, Saint-Patrice-de-Sherrington, Saint-Cyprien-de-Napierville, Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle and Lacolle.
Across the country, new renewables such as wind projects in Yukon are receiving federal support, reflecting broader grid decarbonization.
The last part of the route will run along Fairbanks Creek to the Richelieu River, where it will connect with the American network.
Further south, there will be a 545-kilometre link between the Canada-U.S. border and New York City, while a separate Maine transmission approval advances a New England pathway for Quebec power.
Hydro-Quebec is holding two consultations on the project, on Dec. 8 in Lacolle and Dec. 9 in Saint-Jacques-le-Mineur.
Elsewhere in Atlantic Canada, EV-to-grid integration pilots are underway to test how vehicles can support the power system.
Once the route is in service, the Quebec line will be subject to a partnership between Hydro-Quebec and the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake, which will benefit from economic remunerations for 40 years.
Ontario Electricity Demand 2020 shows a rare decline amid COVID-19, with higher residential peak load, lower commercial usage, hot-weather air conditioning, nuclear baseload constraints, and smart meter data shaping grid operations and forecasting.
Key Points
It refers to 2020 power use in Ontario: overall demand fell, while residential peaks rose and commercial loads dropped.
✅ Peak load shifted to homes; commercial usage declined.
✅ Hot summers raised peaks; overall annual demand still fell.
✅ Smart meters aid forecasting; grid must balance nuclear baseload.
Demand for electricity in Ontario last year fell to levels rarely seen in decades amid shifts in usage patterns caused by pandemic measures, with Ottawa’s electricity consumption dropping notably, new data show.
The decline came despite a hot summer that had people rushing to crank up the air conditioning at home, the province’s power management agency said, even as the government offered electricity relief to families and small businesses.
“We do have this very interesting shift in who’s using the energy,” said Chuck Farmer, senior director of power system planning with the Independent Electricity System Operator.
“Residential users are using more electricity at home than we thought they would and the commercial consumers are using less.”
The onset of the pandemic last March prompted stay-home orders, businesses to close, and a shuttering of live sports, entertainment and dining out. Social distancing and ongoing restrictions, even as the first wave ebbed and some measures eased, nevertheless persisted and kept many people home as summer took hold and morphed into winter, while the province prepared to extend disconnect moratoriums for residential customers.
System operator data show peak electricity demand rose during a hot summer spell to 24,446 megawatts _ the highest since 2013. Overall, however, Ontario electricity demand last year was the second lowest since 1988, the operator said.
In all, Ontario used 132.2 terawatt-hours of power in 2020, a decline of 2.9 per cent from 2019.
With more people at home during the lockdown, winter residential peak demand has climbed 13 per cent above pre-pandemic levels, even as Hydro One made no cut in peak rates for self-isolating customers, while summer peak usage was up 19 per cent.
“The peaks are getting higher than we would normally expect them to be and this was caused by residential customers _ they’re home when you wouldn’t expect them to be home,” Farmer said.
Matching supply and demand _ a key task of the system operator _ is critical to meeting peak usage and ensuring a stable grid, and the operator has contingency plans with some key staff locked down at work sites to maintain operations during COVID-19, because electricity cannot be stored easily. It is also difficult to quickly raise or lower the output from nuclear-powered generators, which account for the bulk of electricity in the province, as demand fluctuates.
Life patterns have long impacted overall usage. For example, demand used to typically climb around 10 p.m. each night as people tuned into national television newscasts. Livestreaming has flattened that bump, while more energy-efficient lighting led to a drop in provincial demand over the holiday season.
The pandemic has now prompted further intra-day shifts in usage. Fewer people are getting up in the morning and powering up at home before powering down and rushing off to work or school. The summer saw more use of air conditioners earlier than normal after-work patterns.
Weather has always been a key driver of demand for power, accounting for example for the record 27,005 megawatts of usage set on a brutally hot Aug. 1, 2006. Similarly, a mild winter and summer led to an overall power usage drop in 2017.
Still, the profound social changes prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic _ and whether some will be permanent _ have complicated demand forecasting.
“Work patterns used to be much more predictable,” the agency said. “The pandemic has now added another element of variability for electricity demand forecasting.”
Some employees sent home to work have returned to their offices and other workplaces, and many others are likely do so once the pandemic recedes. However, some larger companies have indicated that working from home will be long term.
“Companies like Facebook and Shopify have already stated their intention to make work from home a more permanent arrangement,” the operator said. “This is something our near-term forecasters would take into account when preparing for daily operation of the grid.”
Aggregated data from better smart meters, which show power usage throughout the day, is one method of improving forecasting accuracy, the operator said.
EIA U.S. Power Outlook 2023-2024 forecasts lower electricity demand, softer wholesale prices, and faster renewable growth from solar and wind, with steady natural gas, reduced coal generation, slight nuclear gains, and ERCOT market moderation.
Key Points
An EIA forecast of a 2023 demand dip, 2024 rebound, lower prices, and a higher renewable share in the U.S. power mix.
✅ Demand dips to 4,000 billion kWh in 2023; rebounds in 2024.
✅ ERCOT on-peak prices average about $35/MWh versus $80/MWh in 2022.
✅ Renewables grow to 24% share; coal falls to 17%; nuclear edges up.
U.S. power consumption is expected to slip about 1% in 2023 from the previous year as milder weather slows usage from the record high hit in 2022, consistent with recent U.S. consumption trends observed over the past several years, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said in its Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO).
EIA projected that electricity demand is on track to slide to 4,000 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) in 2023 from a historic high of 4,048 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) in 2022, reflecting patterns seen during COVID-19 demand shifts in prior years, before rising to 4,062 billion kWh in 2024 as economic growth ramps up.
Less demand coupled with more electricity generation from cheap renewable power sources and lower natural gas prices is forecast to slash wholesale power prices this year, the EIA said.
The on-peak wholesale price at the North hub in Texas’ ERCOT power market is expected to average about $35 per megawatt-hour (MWh) in 2023 compared with an average of nearly $80/MWh in 2022 after the 2022 price surge in power markets.
As capacity for renewables like solar and wind ramp up and as natural gas prices ease amid the broader energy crisis pressures, the EIA said it expects coal-fired power generation to be 17% less in the spring of 2023 than in the spring of 2022.
Coal will provide an average of 17% of total U.S. generation this year, down from 20% last year, as utilities shift investments toward electricity delivery and away from new power production, the EIA said.
The share of total generation supplied by natural gas is seen remaining at about the same this year at 39%. The nuclear share of generation is seen rising slightly to 20% this year from 19% in 2022. Generation from renewable energy sources grows the most in the forecast, increasing to 24% this year from a share of 22% last year, even as residential electricity bills rose in 2022 across the U.S.
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.
Canada Wind Energy Costs are plunging as renewable energy auctions, CfD contracts, and efficient turbines drive prices to 2-4 cents/kWh across Alberta and Saskatchewan, outcompeting grid power via competitive bidding and improved capacity factors.
Key Points
Averaging 2-4 cents/kWh via auctions, CfD support, and bigger turbines, wind is now cost-competitive across Canada.
✅ Alberta CfD bids as low as 3.9 cents/kWh.
✅ Turbine outputs rose from 1 MW to 3.3 MW per tower.
✅ Competitive auctions cut costs ~70% over nine years.
It's taken a decade of technological improvement and a new competitive bidding process for electrical generation contracts, but wind may have finally come into its own as one of the cheapest ways to create power.
Ten years ago, Ontario was developing new wind power projects at a cost of 28 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), the kind of above-market rate that the U.K., Portugal and other countries were offering to try to kick-start development of renewables.
Now some wind companies say they've brought generation costs down to between 2 and 4 cents — something that appeals to provinces that are looking to significantly increase their renewable energy deployment plans.
The cost of electricity varies across Canada, by province and time of day, from an average of 6.5 cents per kWh in Quebec to as much as 15 cents in Halifax.
Capital Power, an Edmonton-based company, recently won a contract for the Whitla 298.8-megawatt (MW) wind project near Medicine Hat, Alta., with a bid of 3.9 cents per kWh, at a time when three new solar facilities in Alberta have been contracted at lower cost than natural gas, underscoring the trend. That price covers capital costs, transmission and connection to the grid, as well as the cost of building the project.
Jerry Bellikka, director of government relations, said Capital Power has been building wind projects for a decade, in the U.S., Alberta, B.C. and other provinces. In that time the price of wind generation equipment has been declining continually, while the efficiency of wind turbines increases.
Increased efficiency
"It used to be one tower was 1 MW; now each turbine generates 3.3 MW. There's more electricity generated per tower than several years ago," he said.
One wild card for Whitla may be steel prices — because of the U.S. and Canada slapping tariffs on one other's steel and aluminum products. Whitla's towers are set to come from Colorado, and many of the smaller components from China.
Canada introduces new surtaxes to curb flood of steel imports
"We haven't yet taken delivery of the steel. It remains to be seen if we are affected by the tariffs." Belikka said.
Another company had owned the site and had several years of meteorological data, including wind speeds at various heights on the site, which is in a part of southern Alberta known for its strong winds.
But the choice of site was also dependent on the municipality, with rural Forty Mile County eager for the development, Belikka said.
Alberta aims for 30% electricity from wind by 2030
Alberta wants 30 per cent of its electricity to come from renewable sources by 2030 and, as an energy powerhouse, is encouraging that with a guaranteed pricing mechanism in what is otherwise a market-bidding process.
While the cost of generating energy for the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) fluctuates hourly and can be a lot higher when there is high demand, the winners of the renewable energy contracts are guaranteed their fixed-bid price.
The average pool price of electricity last year in Alberta was 5 cents per kWh; in boom times it rose to closer to 8 cents. But if the price rises that high after the wind farm is operating, the renewable generator won't get it, instead rebating anything over 3.9 cents back to the government.
On the other hand, if the average or pool price is a low 2 cents kWh, the province will top up their return to 3.9 cents.
This contract-for-differences (CfD) payment mechanism has been tested in renewable contracts in the U.K. and other jurisdictions, including some U.S. states, according to AESO.
Competitive bidding in Saskatchewan
In Saskatchewan, the plan is to double its capacity of renewable electricity, to 50 per cent of generation capacity, by 2030, and it uses an open bidding system between the private sector generator and publicly owned SaskPower.
In bidding last year on a renewable contract, 15 renewable power developers submitted bids, with an average price of 4.2 cents per kWh.
One low bidder was Potentia with a proposal for a 200 MW project, which should provide electricity for 90,000 homes in the province, at less than 3 cents kWh, according to Robert Hornung of the Canadian Wind Energy Association.
"The cost of wind energy has fallen 70 per cent in the last nine years," he says. "In the last decade, more wind energy has been built than any other form of electricity."
Ontario remains the leading user of wind with 4,902 MW of wind generation as of December 2017, most of that capacity built under a system that offered an above-market price for renewable power, put in place by the previous Liberal government.
In June of last year, the new Conservative government of Doug Ford halted more than 700 renewable-energy projects, one of them a wind farm that is sitting half-built, even as plans to reintroduce renewable projects continue to advance.
The feed-in tariff system that offered a higher rate to early builders of renewable generation ended in 2016, but early contracts with guaranteed prices could last up to 20 years.
Hornung says Ontario now has an excess of generating capacity, as it went on building when the 2008-9 bust cut market consumption dramatically.
But he insists wind can compete in the open market, offering low prices for generation when Ontario needs new capacity.
"I expect there will be competitive processes put in place. I'm quite confident wind projects will continue to go ahead. We're well positioned to do that."
