Britain is to push on with its nuclear plant building plans and let existing reactors run as normal, the government said after its nuclear watchdog dismissed fears of a Fukushima-like disaster in the United Kingdom.
Britain's position contrasts with Japan, Germany and Italy, which are re-thinking their nuclear plans after a huge earthquake and tsunami sparked the world's worst nuclear disaster in 25 years on March 11.
The report by the chief inspector of nuclear installations Mike Weightman reassured the government that Britain does not face the natural hazards, which caused the Fukushima crisis, but told the industry to check its safety procedures against extreme events.
"We want to see new nuclear as part of a low carbon energy mix going forward, provided there is no public subsidy," Energy Minister Chris Huhne said. "The Chief Nuclear Inspector's interim report reassures me that it can."
In his interim report, to be completed after a forthcoming trip to Japan, Weightman said safeguards already in place in Britain should protect against even very remote risks.
"The extreme natural events that preceded the accident at Fukushima — the magnitude 9 earthquake and subsequent huge tsunami — are not credible in the UK," he said.
His report said there was no need to halt nuclear power generation, and supported proposed sites for new reactors, but recommended that the industry review sea-level protection.
A nuclear meltdown and radioactive release in Japan happened after a huge tsunami overwhelmed the Fukushima reactor's defenses, flooding back-up power generators and leading to a loss of cooling in reactor cores.
Weightman's report recommended that the UK nuclear industry review whether it needed additional backup power. He supported Areva and Westinghouse's designs for future reactors that are likely to be built in Britain, saying he would be surprised if major design changes were needed.
Britain has identified eight sites around England and Wales as possible building sites for new nuclear plants, with the first expected to be built by EDF at Hinkley Point on the coast of southwest England by 2018.
Japan is reeling from the triple disaster of an earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis, with the government struggling to figure out how to pay for reconstruction.
Japan's Prime Minister said that Japan needed to rethink fundamentally how nuclear power was regulated but sidestepped the question of how big a role atomic energy would play in the country's future.
Germany mothballed its oldest reactors immediately after Fukushima, but the country shouldn't altogether exit nuclear energy immediately, its environment minister said. Italy has delayed until 2012 a vote on new build.
The quake caused the world's worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986, after a partial meltdown of fuel at the Fukushima nuclear plant and explosions led to a radioactive release and the imposition of a 20-km exclusion zone.
Such explosions caused by a release of hydrogen could not happen at UK plants, Weightman's report said.
He will visit Japan to lead a fact-finding mission on behalf of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
His report said that the Fukushima reactor was not defended against the 15 metre tsunami despite reports of some greater than 20 metres around Japan in the past 150 years.
He praised the determination of the operating company TEPCO in dealing with the crisis.
100% Clean Energy Targets drive renewable electricity, decarbonization, and cost savings through state policies, CCAs, RECs, and mandates, with timelines and interim goals that boost jobs, resilience, and public health across cities, counties, and utilities.
Key Points
Policies for cities and states to reach 100% clean power by set dates, using mandates, RECs, and interim goals.
✅ Define eligible clean vs renewable resources
✅ Mandate vs goal framework with enforcement
✅ Timelines with interim targets and escape clauses
“An enormous amount of authority still rests with the states for determining your energy future. So we can build these policies that will become a postcard from the future for the rest of the country,” said David Hochschild, chair of the California Energy Commission, speaking last week at a UCLA summit on state and local progress toward 100 percent clean energy.
According to a new report from the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation, 13 states, districts and territories, as well as more than 200 cities and counties, with standout clean energy purchases by Southeast cities helping drive momentum, have committed to a 100 percent clean electricity target — and dozens of cities have already hit it.
This means that one of every three Americans, or roughly 111 million U.S. residents representing 34 percent of the population, live in a community that has committed to or has already achieved 100 percent clean electricity, including communities like Frisco, Colorado that have set ambitious targets.
“We’re going to look back on this moment as the moment when local action and state commitments began to push the entire nation toward this goal,” said J.R. DeShazo, director of the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation.
Not all 100 percent targets are alike, however. The report notes that these targets vary based on 1) what resources are eligible, 2) how binding the 100 percent target is, and 3) how and when the target will be achieved.
These distinctions will carry a lot of weight as the policy discussion shifts from setting goals to actually meeting targets. They also have implications for communities in terms of health benefits, cost savings and employment opportunities.
100% targets come in different forms
One key attribute is whether a target is based on "renewable" or "clean" energy resources. Some 100 percent targets, like Hawaii’s and Rhode Island’s 2030 plan, are focused exclusively on renewable energy, or sources that cannot be depleted, such as wind, solar and geothermal. But most jurisdictions use the broader term “clean energy,” which can also include resources like large hydroelectric generation and nuclear power.
States also vary in their treatment of renewable energy certificates, used to track and assign ownership to renewable energy generation and use. Unbundled RECs allow for the environmental attributes of the renewable energy resource to be purchased separately from the physical electricity delivery.
The binding nature of these targets is also noteworthy. Seven states, as well as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, have passed 100 percent clean energy transition laws. Of the jurisdictions that have passed 100 percent legislation, all but one specifies that the target is a “mandate,” according to the report. Nevada is the only state to call the target a “goal.”
Governors in four other states have signed executive orders with 100 percent clean energy goals.
Target timelines also vary. Washington, D.C. has set the most ambitious target date, with a mandate to achieve 100 percent renewable electricity by 2032. Other states and cities have set deadline years between 2040 and 2050. All "100 percent" state laws, and some city and county policies, also include interim targets to keep clean energy deployment on track.
In addition, some locations have included some form of escape clause. For instance, Salt Lake City, which last month passed a resolution establishing a goal of powering the county with 100 percent clean electricity by 2030, included “exit strategies” in its policy in order to encourage stakeholder buy-in, said Mayor Jackie Biskupski, speaking last week at the UCLA summit.
“We don’t think they’ll get used, but they’re there,” she said.
Other locales, meanwhile, have decided to go well beyond 100 percent clean electricity. The State of California and 44 cities have set even more challenging targets to also transition their entire transportation, heating and cooling sectors to 100 percent clean energy sources, and proposals like requiring solar panels on new buildings underscore how policy can accelerate progress across sectors.
Businesses are simultaneously electing to adopt more clean and renewable energy. Six utilities across the United States have set their own 100 percent clean or carbon-free electricity targets. UCLA researchers did not include populations served by these utilities in their analysis of locations with state and city 100 percent clean commitments.
“We cannot wait”
All state and local policies that require a certain share of electricity to come from renewable energy resources have contributed to more efficient project development and financing mechanisms, which have supported continued technology cost declines and contributed to a near doubling of renewable energy generation since 2008.
Many communities are switching to clean energy in order to save money, now that the cost calculation is increasingly in favor of renewables over fossil fuels, as more jurisdictions get on the road to 100% renewables worldwide. Additional benefits include local job creation, cleaner air and electricity system resilience due to greater reliance on local energy resources.
Another major motivator is climate change. The electricity sector is responsible for 28 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, second only to transportation. Decarbonizing the grid also helps to clean up the transportation sector as more vehicles move to electricity as their fuel source.
“The now-constant threat of wildfires, droughts, severe storms and habitat loss driven by climate change signals a crisis we can no longer ignore,” said Carla Peterman, senior vice president of regulatory affairs at investor-owned utility Southern California Edison. “We cannot wait and we should not wait when there are viable solutions to pursue now.”
Prior to joining SCE on October 1, Peterman served as a member of the California Public Utilities Commission, which implements and administers renewable portfolio standard (RPS) compliance rules for California’s retail sellers of electricity. California’s target requires 60 percent of the state’s electricity to come from renewable energy resources by 2030, and all the state's electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.
How CCAs are driving renewable energy deployment
One way California communities are working to meet the state’s ambitious targets is through community-choice aggregation, especially after California's near-100% renewable milestone underscored what's possible, via which cities and counties can take control of their energy procurement decisions to suit their preferences. Investor-owned utilities no longer purchase energy for these jurisdictions, but they continue to operate the transmission and distribution grid for all electricity users.
A second paper released by the Luskin Center for Innovation in recent days examines how community-choice aggregators are affecting levels of renewable energy deployment in California and contributing to the state’s 100 percent target.
The paper finds that 19 CCAs have launched in California since 2010, growing to include more than 160 towns, cities and counties. Of those communities, 64 have a 100 percent renewable or clean energy policy as their default energy program.
Because of these policies, the UCLA paper finds that “CCAs have had both direct and indirect effects that have led to increases in the clean energy sold in excess of the state’s RPS.”
From 2011 to 2018, CCAs directly procured 24 terawatt-hours of RPS-eligible electricity, 11 TWh of which have been voluntary or in excess of RPS compliance, according to the paper.
The formation of CCAs has also had an indirect effect on investor-owned utilities. As customers have left investor-owned utilities to join CCAs, the utilities have been left holding contracts for more renewable energy than they need to comply with California’s clean energy targets, amid rising solar and wind curtailments that complicate procurement decisions. UCLA researchers estimate that this indirect effect of CCA formation has left IOUs holding 13 terawatt-hours in excess of RPS requirements.
The paper concludes that CCAs have helped to accelerate California’s ability to meet state renewable energy targets over the past decade. However, the future contributions of CCAs to the RPS are more uncertain as communities make new power-purchasing decisions and utilities seek to reduce their excess renewable energy contracts.
“CCAs offer a way for communities to put their desire for clean energy into action. They're growing fast in California, one of only eight states where this kind of mechanism is allowed," said UCLA's Kelly Trumbull, an author of the report. "State and federal policies could be reformed to better enable communities to meet local demand for renewable energy.”
Texas EV Registration Fee adds a $200 annual charge under Senate Bill 505, offsetting lost gasoline tax revenue to the State Highway Fund, impacting electric vehicle owners at registration and renewals across Texas.
Key Points
A $200 yearly charge on electric vehicles to replace lost gasoline tax revenue and support Texas Highway Fund road work.
✅ $200 due at registration or renewal; $400 upfront on new EVs.
✅ Enacted by Senate Bill 505 to offset lost gasoline tax revenue.
Plano resident Tony Federico bought his Tesla five years ago in part because he hated spending lots of money on gas, and Supercharger billing changes have also influenced charging expenses. But that financial calculus will change slightly on Sept. 1, when Texas will start charging electric vehicle drivers an additional fee of $200 each year.
“It just seems like it’s arbitrary, with no real logic behind it,” said Federico, 51, who works in information technology. “But I’m going to have to pay it.”
Earlier this year, state lawmakers passed Senate Bill 505, which requires electric vehicle owners to pay the fee when they register a vehicle or renew their registration, even as fights for control over charging continue among utilities, automakers and retailers. It’s being imposed because lawmakers said EV drivers weren’t paying their fair share into a fund that helps cover road construction and repairs across Texas.
The cost will be especially high for those who purchase a new electric vehicle and have to pay two years of registration, or $400, up front.
Texas agencies estimated in a 2020 report that the state lost an average of $200 per year in federal and state gasoline tax dollars when an electric vehicle replaced a gas-fueled one. The agencies called the fee “the most straightforward” remedy.
Gasoline taxes go to the State Highway Fund, which the Texas Department of Transportation calls its “primary funding source.” Electric vehicle drivers don’t pay those taxes, though, because they don’t use gasoline.
Still, EV drivers do use the roads. And while electric vehicles make up a tiny portion of cars in Texas for now, that fraction is expected to increase, raising concerns about state power grids in the years ahead.
Many environmental and consumer advocates agreed with lawmakers that EV drivers should pay into the highway fund but argued over how much, and debates over fairer vehicle taxes are surfacing abroad as well.
Some thought the state should set the fee lower to cover only the lost state tax dollars, rather than both the state and federal money, because federal officials may devise their own scheme. Others argued the state should charge nothing because EVs help reduce greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change and can offer budget benefits for many owners.
“We urgently need to get more electric vehicles on the road,” said Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas. “Any increased fee could create an additional barrier for Texans, and particularly more moderate- to low-income Texans, to make that transition.”
Tom “Smitty” Smith, the executive director of the Texas Electric Transportation Resources Alliance, advocated for a fee based on how many miles a person drove their electric car, which would better mirror how the gas taxes are assessed.
Texas has a limited incentive that could offset the cost: It offers rebates of up to $2,500 for up to 2,000 new hydrogen fuel cell, electric or hybrid vehicles every two years. Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen’s Texas office director, recommended that the state expand the rebates, noting that state-level EV benefits can be significant.
In the Houston area, dealer Steven Wolf isn’t worried about the fee deterring potential customers from buying the electric Ford F-150 Lightning and Mustang Mach-E vehicles he sells. Electric cars are already more expensive than comparable gasoline-fueled cars, and charging networks compete for drivers, he said.
VW Germany Plant Closures For EV Shift signal a strategic realignment toward electric vehicles, sustainability, and zero-emission mobility, optimizing manufacturing, cutting ICE capacity, boosting battery production, retraining workers, and aligning with the Accelerate decarbonization strategy.
Key Points
VW is shuttering German plants to cut ICE costs and scale EV output, advancing sustainability and competitiveness.
✅ Streamlines operations; reallocates capital to EV platforms and batteries.
✅ Retrains workforce amid closures; invests in software and charging tech.
Volkswagen (VW), one of the world’s largest automakers, is undergoing a significant transformation with the announcement of plant closures in Germany. As reported by The Guardian, this strategic shift is part of VW’s broader move towards prioritizing electric vehicles (EVs) and adapting to the evolving automotive market as EVs reach an inflection point globally. The decision highlights the company’s commitment to sustainability and innovation amid a rapidly changing industry landscape.
Strategic Plant Closures
Volkswagen’s decision to close several of its plants in Germany marks a pivotal moment in the company's history. These closures are part of a broader strategy to streamline operations, reduce costs, and focus on the production of electric vehicles. The move reflects VW’s response to the growing demand for EVs and the need to transition from traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to cleaner, more sustainable alternatives.
The affected plants, which have been key components of VW’s manufacturing network, will cease production as the company reallocates resources and investments towards its electric vehicle programs. This realignment is aimed at improving operational efficiency and ensuring that VW remains competitive in a market that is increasingly oriented towards electric mobility.
A Shift Towards Electric Vehicles
The closures are closely linked to Volkswagen’s strategic shift towards electric vehicles. The automotive industry is undergoing a profound transformation as governments and consumers place greater emphasis on sustainability and reducing carbon emissions. Volkswagen has recognized this shift and is investing heavily in the development and production of EVs as part of its "Accelerate" strategy, anticipating widespread EV adoption within a decade across key markets.
The company’s commitment to electric vehicles is evident in its plans to launch a range of new electric models and increase production capacity for EVs. Volkswagen aims to become a leader in the electric mobility sector by leveraging its technological expertise and scale to drive innovation and expand its EV offerings.
Economic and Environmental Implications
The closure of VW’s German plants carries both economic and environmental implications. Economically, the move will impact the workforce and local economies dependent on these manufacturing sites. Volkswagen has indicated that it will work on providing support and retraining opportunities for affected employees, as the EV aftermarket evolves and reshapes service needs, but the transition will still pose challenges for workers and their communities.
Environmentally, the shift towards electric vehicles represents a significant positive development. Electric vehicles produce zero tailpipe emissions, which aligns with global efforts to combat climate change and reduce air pollution. By focusing on EV production, Volkswagen is contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and supporting the transition to a more sustainable transportation system.
Challenges and Opportunities
While the transition to electric vehicles presents opportunities, it also comes with challenges. Volkswagen will need to manage the complexities of closing and repurposing its existing plants while ramping up production at new or upgraded facilities dedicated to EVs. This transition requires substantial investment in new technologies, infrastructure, and training, including battery supply strategies that influence manufacturing footprints, to ensure a smooth shift from traditional automotive manufacturing.
Additionally, Volkswagen faces competition from other automakers that are also investing heavily in electric vehicles, including Daimler's electrification plan outlining the scope of its transition. To maintain its competitive edge, VW must continue to innovate and offer attractive, high-performance electric models that meet consumer expectations.
Future Outlook
Looking ahead, Volkswagen’s focus on electric vehicles aligns with broader industry trends and regulatory pressures. Governments worldwide are implementing stricter emissions regulations and providing incentives for EV adoption, although Germany's plan to end EV subsidies has sparked debate domestically, creating a favorable environment for companies that are committed to sustainability and clean technology.
Volkswagen’s investment in electric vehicles and its strategic realignment reflect a proactive approach to addressing these trends. The company’s ability to navigate the challenges associated with plant closures and the transition to electric mobility will be critical, especially as Europe's EV slump tests demand signals, in determining its success in the evolving automotive landscape.
Conclusion
Volkswagen’s decision to close several plants in Germany and focus on electric vehicle production represents a significant shift in the company’s strategy. While the closures present challenges, they also highlight Volkswagen’s commitment to sustainability and its response to the growing demand for cleaner transportation solutions. By investing in electric vehicles and adapting its operations, Volkswagen aims to lead the way in the transition to a more sustainable automotive future. As the company moves forward, its ability to effectively manage this transition will be crucial in shaping its role in the global automotive market.
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.
USAID GE Mobile Power Plant Ukraine supplies 28MW of emergency power and distributed generation to bolster energy security, grid resilience, and critical infrastructure reliability across cities and regions amid ongoing attacks.
Key Points
A 28MW GE gas turbine from USAID providing mobile, distributed power to strengthen Ukraine's grid resilience.
✅ 28MW GE gas turbine; power for 100,000 homes
✅ Mobile deployment to cities and regions as needed
✅ Supports hospitals, schools, and critical infrastructure
Deputy U.S. Administrator Isobel Coleman announced during her visit to Kyiv that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has provided the Government of Ukraine with a mobile gas turbine power plant purchased from General Electric (GE), as discussions of a possible agreement on power plant attacks continue among stakeholders.
The mobile power plant was manufactured in the United States by GE’s Gas Power business and has a total output capacity of approximately 28MW, which is enough to provide the equivalent electricity to at least 100,000 homes. This will help Ukraine increase the supply of electricity to homes, hospitals, schools, critical infrastructure providers, and other institutions, as the country has even resumed electricity exports in recent months. The mobile power plant can be operated in different cities or regions depending on need, strengthening Ukraine’s energy security amid the Russian Federation’s continuing strikes against critical infrastructure.
Since the February 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and particularly since October 2022, the Russian Federation has deliberately targeted critical civilian heating, power, and gas infrastructure in an effort to weaponize the winter, raising nuclear risks to grid stability noted by international monitors. Ukraine has demonstrated tremendous resilience in the wake of these attacks, with utility workers routinely risking their lives to repair the damage, often within hours of air strikes, even as Russia builds power lines to reactivate the Zaporizhzhia plant to influence the energy situation.
The collaboration between USAID and GE reflects the U.S. government’s emphasis on engaging American private sector expertise and procuring proven and reliable equipment to meet Ukraine’s needs. Since the start of Putin’s full-scale war against Ukraine, USAID has both directly procured equipment for Ukraine from American companies and engaged the private sector in partnerships to meet Ukraine’s urgent wartime needs, with U.S. policy debates such as a proposal on Ukraine’s nuclear plants drawing scrutiny.
This mobile power plant is the latest example of USAID assistance to Ukraine’s energy sector since the start of the Russian Federation’s full-scale invasion, during which Ukraine has resumed electricity exports as conditions improved. USAID has already delivered more than 1,700 generators to 22 oblasts across Ukraine, with many more on the way. These generators ensure electricity and heating for schools, hospitals, accommodation centers for internally-displaced persons, district heating companies, and water systems if and when power is knocked out by the Russian Federation’s relentless, systematic and cruel attacks against critical civil infrastructure. USAID has invested $55 million in Ukraine’s heating infrastructure to help the Ukrainian people get through winter. This support will benefit up to seven million Ukrainians by supporting repairs and maintenance of pipes and other equipment necessary to deliver heating to homes, hospitals, schools, and businesses across Ukraine. USAID’s assistance builds on over two decades of support to Ukraine to strengthen the country’s energy security, complementing growth in wind power that is harder to destroy.
Proton Conducting Fuel Cells enable reversible hydrogen energy storage, coupling electrolyzers and fuel cells with ceramic catalysts and proton-conducting membranes to convert wind and solar electricity into fuel and back to reliable grid power.
Key Points
Proton conducting fuel cells store renewable power as hydrogen and generate electricity using reversible catalysts.
✅ Reversible electrolysis and fuel-cell operation in one device
✅ Ceramic air electrodes hit up to 98% splitting efficiency
✅ Scalable path to low-cost grid energy storage with hydrogen
If we want a shot at transitioning to renewable energy, we’ll need one crucial thing: technologies that can convert electricity from wind, sun, and even electricity from raindrops into a chemical fuel for storage and vice versa. Commercial devices that do this exist, but most are costly and perform only half of the equation. Now, researchers have created lab-scale gadgets that do both jobs. If larger versions work as well, they would help make it possible—or at least more affordable—to run the world on renewables.
The market for such technologies has grown along with renewables: In 2007, solar and wind provided just 0.8% of all power in the United States; in 2017, that number was 8%, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. But the demand for electricity often doesn’t match the supply from solar and wind, a key reason why the U.S. grid isn't 100% renewable today. In sunny California, for example, solar panels regularly produce more power than needed in the middle of the day, but none at night, after most workers and students return home.
Some utilities are beginning to install massive banks of cheaper solar batteries in hopes of storing excess energy and evening out the balance sheet. But batteries are costly and store only enough energy to back up the grid for a few hours at most. Another option is to store the energy by converting it into hydrogen fuel. Devices called electrolyzers do this by using electricity—ideally from solar and wind power—to split water into oxygen and hydrogen gas, a carbon-free fuel. A second set of devices called fuel cells can then convert that hydrogen back to electricity to power cars, trucks, and buses, or to feed it to the grid.
But commercial electrolyzers and fuel cells use different catalysts to speed up the two reactions, meaning a single device can’t do both jobs. To get around this, researchers have been experimenting with a newer type of fuel cell, called a proton conducting fuel cell (PCFC), which can make fuel or convert it back into electricity using just one set of catalysts.
PCFCs consist of two electrodes separated by a membrane that allows protons across. At the first electrode, known as the air electrode, steam and electricity are fed into a ceramic catalyst, which splits the steam’s water molecules into positively charged hydrogen ions (protons), electrons, and oxygen molecules. The electrons travel through an external wire to the second electrode—the fuel electrode—where they meet up with the protons that crossed through the membrane. There, a nickel-based catalyst stitches them together to make hydrogen gas (H2). In previous PCFCs, the nickel catalysts performed well, but the ceramic catalysts were inefficient, using less than 70% of the electricity to split the water molecules. Much of the energy was lost as heat.
Now, two research teams have made key strides in improving this efficiency, and a new fuel cell concept brings biological design ideas into the mix. They both focused on making improvements to the air electrode, because the nickel-based fuel electrode did a good enough job. In January, researchers led by chemist Sossina Haile at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, reported in Energy & Environmental Science that they came up with a fuel electrode made from a ceramic alloy containing six elements that harnessed 76% of its electricity to split water molecules. And in today’s issue of Nature Energy, Ryan O’Hayre, a chemist at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, reports that his team has done one better. Their ceramic alloy electrode, made up of five elements, harnesses as much as 98% of the energy it’s fed to split water.
When both teams run their setups in reverse, the fuel electrode splits H2 molecules into protons and electrons. The electrons travel through an external wire to the air electrode—providing electricity to power devices. When they reach the electrode, they combine with oxygen from the air and protons that crossed back over the membrane to produce water.
The O’Hayre group’s latest work is “impressive,” Haile says. “The electricity you are putting in is making H2 and not heating up your system. They did a really good job with that.” Still, she cautions, both her new device and the one from the O’Hayre lab are small laboratory demonstrations. For the technology to have a societal impact, researchers will need to scale up the button-size devices, a process that typically reduces performance. If engineers can make that happen, the cost of storing renewable energy could drop precipitously, thereby moving us closer to cheap abundant electricity at scale, helping utilities do away with their dependence on fossil fuels.
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
