About 200 people rallied in opposition to climate and energy legislation passed by the U.S. House.
The rally in Anchorage was sponsored by the Alaska Energy Forum. It had the backing of the American Petroleum Institute, which is supporting similar "Energy Citizen" gatherings in other oil-producing states.
Speakers took aim at the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill, also known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act.
The legislation would require the United States to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by about 80 percent by mid-century.
Former gubernatorial candidate Andrew Halcro says the measure is politically driven and will harm the country's economy with job losses.
Alberta-BC Pipeline Dispute centers on Trans Mountain expansion, diluted bitumen shipments, federal approval, spill response capacity, and electricity trade, as Alberta suspends power talks and Ottawa insists the Kinder Morgan project proceeds in national interest.
Key Points
Dispute over Trans Mountain expansion, bitumen limits, and jurisdiction between Alberta, B.C., and Canada.
✅ Alberta suspends BC electricity talks as leverage
✅ Ottawa affirms federal approval and spill response
✅ BC plans advisory panel on diluted bitumen risks
Alberta Premier Rachel Notley says her government is suspending talks with British Columbia on the purchase of electricity from the western province.
It’s the first step in Alberta’s fight against the B.C. government’s proposal to obstruct the Kinder Morgan oil pipeline expansion project by banning increased shipments of diluted bitumen to the province’s coast.
Up to $500 million annually for B.C.’s coffers from electricity exports hangs in the balance, Notley said.
“We’re prepared to do what it takes to get this pipeline built — whatever it takes,” she told a news conference Thursday after speaking with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on the phone.
Notley said she told Trudeau, who’s in Edmonton for a town-hall meeting, that the federal government needs to act decisively to end the dispute.
Speaking on Edmonton talk radio station CHED earlier in the day, Trudeau said the pipeline expansion is in the national interest and will go ahead, even as the federal government undertakes a study on electrification across sectors.
“That pipeline is going to get built,” Trudeau said. “We will stand by our decision. We will ensure that the Kinder Morgan pipeline gets built.”
B.C.’s environment minister has said his minority government plans to ban increased shipments until it can determine that shippers are prepared and able to properly clean up a spill, and, separately, has implemented an electricity rate freeze affecting consumers. He said he will establish an independent scientific advisory panel to study the issue.
The move infuriated Notley, who has accused B.C. of trying to change the rules after the federal government gave the project the green light. B.C. has the right to regulate how any spills would be cleaned up, but can’t dictate what flows through pipelines, she said.
Trudeau said Canada needs to get Alberta’s oil safely to markets other than the U.S. energy market today. He said the federal government did the research and has spent billions on spill response.
“The Kinder Morgan pipeline is not a danger to the B.C. coast,” he said.
Notley said she thanked Trudeau for his assurance that the project will go ahead, but the federal government has to do more to ensure the pipeline’s expansion.
“This is not an Alberta-B.C. issue. This is a Canada-B.C. issue,” she said. “This kind of uncertainty is bad for investment and bad for working people
“Enough is enough. We need to get these things built.”
B.C. Premier John Horgan said his government consulted Alberta and Ottawa about his province’s intentions, noting that Columbia River Treaty talks also shape regional electricity policy.
“I don’t see what the problem is,” Horgan said Thursday at a school opening north of Kelowna, B.C. “It’s within our jurisdiction to put in place regulations to protect the public interest.
“That’s what we are doing.”
He downplayed any possibility of court action or sanctions by Alberta.
“There’s nothing to take to court,” Horgan said. “We are consulting with the people of B.C. It’s way too premature to talk about those sorts of issues.
“Sabre-rattling doesn’t get you very far.”
Speaking in Ottawa, Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr wouldn’t say what Canada might do if British Columbia implements its regulation.
“That’s speculative,” said Carr.
He noted at this point, B.C. has just pledged to consult. He said the federal government heard from thousands of people before the pipeline was approved.
“That’s what they have announced — an intention to consult. We have already consulted.”
B.C.’s proposal creates more uncertainty for Kinder Morgan’s already-delayed Trans Mountain expansion project that would nearly triple the capacity of its pipeline system to 890,000 barrels a day.
Manitoba Hydro capacity constraints challenge clean energy growth as industrial demand, hydrogen projects, EV batteries, and electrification strain the grid; limited surplus, renewables, storage, and transmission bottlenecks hinder new high-load connections.
Key Points
Limited surplus power blocks new energy-intensive loads until added generation and transmission expand Manitoba's grid.
✅ No firm commitments for new energy-intensive industrial customers
✅ Single large load could consume remaining surplus capacity
✅ New renewables need transmission; gas, nuclear face trade-offs
Manitoba Hydro lacks the capacity to provide electricity to any new "energy intensive" industrial customers, the Crown corporation warns in a confidential briefing note that undercuts the idea this province can lure large businesses with an ample supply of clean, green energy, as the need for new power generation looms for the utility.
On July 28, provincial economic development officials unveiled an "energy roadmap" that said Manitoba Hydro must double or triple its generating capacity, as electrical demand could double over the next two decades in order to meet industrial and consumer demand for electricity produced without burning fossil fuels.
Those officials said 18 potential new customers with high energy needs were looking at setting up operations in Manitoba — and warned the province must be careful to choose businesses that provide the greatest economic benefit as well as the lowest environmental impact.
In a briefing note dated Sept. 13, obtained by CBC News, Manitoba Hydro warns it doesn't have enough excess power to hook up any of these new heavy electricity-using customers to the provincial power grid.
There are actually 57 proposals to use large volumes of electricity, Hydro says in the note, including eight projects already in the detailed study phase and nine where the proponents are working on construction agreements.
"Manitoba Hydro is unable to offer firm commitments to prospective customers that may align with Manitoba's energy roadmap and/or provincial economic development objectives," Hydro warns in the note, explaining it is legally obliged to serve all existing customers who need more electricity.
"As such, Manitoba Hydro cannot reserve electric supply for particular projects."
Hydro says in the note its "near-term surplus electricity supply" is so limited amid a Western Canada drought that "a single energy-intensive connection may consume all remaining electrical capacity."
Adding more electrical generating capacity won't be easy, even with new turbine investments underway, and will not happen in time to meet demands from customers looking to set up shop in the province, Hydro warns.
The Crown corporation goes on to say it's grappling with numerous requests from existing and prospective energy-intensive customers, mainly for producing hydrogen, manufacturing electric vehicle batteries and switching from fossil fuels to electricity, such as to use electricity for heat in buildings.
In a statement, Hydro said it wants to ensure Manitobans know the corporation is not running out of power — just the ability to meet the needs of large new customers, and continues to provide clean energy to neighboring provinces today.
"The size of loads looking to come to Manitoba are significantly larger than we typically see, and until additional supply is available, that limits our ability to connect them," Hydro spokesperson Bruce Owen said in a statement.
Adding wind power or battery storage, for example, would require the construction of more transmission lines, and deals such as SaskPower's purchase depend on that interprovincial infrastructure as well.
Natural gas plants are relatively inexpensive to build but do not align with efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Nuclear power plants require at least a decade of lead time to build, and tend to generate local opposition.
Hydro has also ruled out building another hydroelectric dam on the Nelson River, where the Conawapa project was put on hold in 2014.
COVID-19 Impact on U.S. Electricity Consumption shows commercial and industrial demand dropped as residential use rose, with flattened peak loads, weekday-weekend convergence, Texas hourly data, and energy demand as a real-time economic indicator.
Key Points
It reduced commercial and industrial demand while raising residential use, shifting peaks and weekday patterns.
✅ Commercial electricity down 12%; industrial down 14% in Q2 2020
✅ Residential use up 10% amid work-from-home and lockdowns
✅ Peaks flattened; weekday-weekend loads converged in Texas
This is an important turning point for the United States. We have a long road ahead. But one of the reasons I’m optimistic about Biden-Harris is that we will once again have an administration that believes in science.
To embrace this return to science, I want to write today about a fascinating new working paper by Tufts economist Steve Cicala.
Professor Cicala has been studying the effect of Covid on electricity consumption since back in March, when the Wall Street Journal picked up his work documenting an 18% decrease in electricity consumption in Italy.
The new work, focused on the United States, is particularly compelling because it uses data that allows him to distinguish between residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, against a backdrop of declining U.S. electricity sales over recent years.
Fact #1: Firms Are Using Less U.S. commercial electricity consumption fell 12% during the second quarter of 2020. U.S. industrial electricity consumption fell 14% over the same period.
This makes sense. The second quarter was by some measures, the worst quarter for the U.S. economy in over 145 years!
Economic activity shrank. Schools closed. Offices closed. Factories closed. Restaurants closed. Malls closed. Even health care offices closed as patients delayed going to the dentist and other routine care. All this means less heating and cooling, less lighting, less refrigeration, less power for computers and other office equipment, less everything.
The decrease in the industrial sector is a little more surprising. My impression had been that the industrial sector had not fallen as far as commercial, but amid broader disruptions in coal and nuclear power that strained parts of the energy economy, the patterns for both sectors are quite similar with the decline peaking in May and then partially rebounding by July. The paper also shows that areas with higher unemployment rates experienced larger declines in both sectors.
Fact #2: Households Are Using More While firms are using less, households are using more. U.S. residential electricity consumption increased 10% during the second quarter of 2020. Consumption surged during March, April, and May, a reflection of the lockdown lifestyle many adopted, and then leveled off in June and July – with much less of the rebound observed on the commercial/industrial side.
This pattern makes sense, too. In Professor Cicala’s words, “people are spending an inordinate amount of time at home”. Many of us switched over to working from home almost immediately, and haven’t looked back. This means more air conditioning, more running the dishwasher, more CNN (especially last week), more Zoom, and so on.
The paper also examines the correlates of the decline. Areas in the U.S. where more people can work from home experienced larger increases. Unemployment rates, however, are almost completely uncorrelated with the increase.
Fact #3: Firms are Less Peaky The paper next turns to a novel dataset from Texas, where Texas grid reliability is under active discussion, that makes it possible to measure hourly electricity consumption by sector.
As the figure above illustrates, the biggest declines in commercial/industrial electricity consumption have occurred Monday through Friday between 9AM and 5PM.
The dashed line shows the pattern during 2019. Notice the large spikes in electricity consumption during business hours. The solid line shows the pattern during 2020. Much smaller spikes during business hours.
Fact #4: Everyday is Like Sunday Finally, we have what I would like to nominate as the “Energy Figure of the Year”.
Again, start with the pattern for 2019, reflected by the dashed line. Prior to Covid, Texas households used a lot more electricity on Saturdays and Sundays.
Then along comes Covid, and turned every day into the weekend. Residential electricity consumption in Texas during business hours Monday-Friday is up 16%(!).
In the pattern for 2020, it isn’t easy to distinguish weekends from weekdays. If you feel like weekdays and weekends are becoming a big blur – you are not alone.
Conclusion Researchers are increasingly thinking about electricity consumption as a real-time indicator of economic activity, even as flat electricity demand complicates utility planning and investment. This is an intriguing idea, but Professor Cicala’s new paper shows that it is important to look sector-by-sector.
While commercial and industrial consumption indeed seem to measure the strength of an economy, residential consumption has been sharply countercylical – increasing exactly when people are not at work and not at school.
These large changes in behavior are specific to the pandemic. Still, with the increased blurring of home and non-home activities we may look back on 2020 as a key turning point in how we think about these three sectors of the economy.
More broadly, Professor Cicala’s paper highlights the value of social science research. We need facts, data, and yes, science, if we are to understand the economy and craft effective policies on energy insecurity and shut-offs as well.
Great British Energy could cut UK electricity costs via public ownership, investing in clean energy like wind, solar, tidal, and nuclear, curbing windfall profits, stabilizing bills, and reinvesting returns through a state-backed generator.
Key Points
A proposed state-backed UK generator investing in clean power to cut costs and return gains to taxpayers.
✅ Publicly owned investment in wind, solar, tidal, and nuclear
✅ Cuts electricity bills by reducing generators' windfall profits
✅ Funded via bonds or asset buyouts; non-profit operations
A publicly owned electricity generation firm could save Britons nearly £21bn a year, according to new analysis that bolsters Labour’s case to launch a national energy company if the party gains power.
Thinktank Common Wealth has calculated that the cost of generating electricity to power homes and businesses could be reduced by £20.8bn or £252 per household a year under state ownership, according to a report seen by the Guardian.
The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, has committed to creating “a publicly owned national champion in clean energy” named Great British Energy.
Starmer is yet to lay out the exact structure of the mooted company, although he has said it would not involve nationalising existing assets, or become involved in the transmission grid or retail supply of energy.
Starmer instead hopes to create a state-backed entity that would invest in clean energy – wind, solar, tidal, nuclear, large-scale storage and other emerging technologies – creating jobs and ensuring windfalls from the growth in low carbon power feed back to the government.
The Common Wealth report, which analysed scenarios for reforming the electricity market, said that a huge saving on electricity costs could be made by buying out assets such as wind, solar and biomass generators on older contracts and running them on a non-profit basis. Funding the measure could require a government bond issuance, or some form of compulsory purchase process.
Last year the government attempted to get companies operating low carbon generators, including nuclear power plants, on older contracts to switch to contracts for difference (CfD), allowing any outsized profits to flow back to taxpayers. However, the government later decided to tax eligible firms through the electricity generator levy instead.
The Common Wealth study concluded that a publicly owned low carbon energy generator would best deliver on Britain’s climate and economic goals, would eliminate windfall profits made by generators and would cut household bills significantly.
MPs and campaigners have argued that Britain’s energy companies should be nationalised since the energy crisis, even as coal-free records have multiplied and renewables still need more support, which has resulted in North Sea oil and gas producers and electricity generators making windfall profits, and a string of retail suppliers collapsing, costing taxpayers billions. Detractors of nationalisation in energy argue it can stifle innovation and expose taxpayers to huge financial risks.
Common Wealth pointed out that more than 40% of the UK’s offshore wind generation capacity was publicly owned by overseas national entities, meaning the benefits of high electricity prices linked to the war in Ukraine had flowed back to other governments.
The study found the publicly owned generator model would create more savings than other options, including a drive for voluntary CfDs; splitting the generation market between low carbon and fossil fuel sources at a time when wind and solar have outproduced nuclear, and a “single buyer model” with nationalised retail suppliers.
Manitoba Hydro unpaid leave plan offers unpaid days off to curb workforce costs amid COVID-19, avoiding temporary layoffs and pay cuts, targeting $5.7M savings through executive, manager, and engineer participation, with union options under discussion.
Key Points
A cost-saving measure offering unpaid days off to avert layoffs and pay cuts, targeting $5.7M savings amid COVID-19.
✅ 3 unpaid days for executives, managers, engineers
✅ Targets $5.7M total; $1.4M from non-union staff
✅ Avoids about 240 layoffs over a four-month period
The Manitoba government's Crown energy utility is offering workers unpaid days off as an alternative to temporary layoffs or pay cuts, even as residential electricity use rises due to more working from home.
In an email to employees, Manitoba Hydro president Jay Grewal says executives, managers, and engineers will take three unpaid days off before the fiscal year ends next March.
She says similar options are being discussed with other employee groups, which are represented by unions, as the Saskatchewan COVID-19 crisis reshaped workforces across the Prairies.
The provincial government ordered Manitoba Hydro to reduce workforce costs during the COVID-19 pandemic, as some power operators considered on-site staffing plans, and at one point the utility said it was looking at 600 to 700 temporary layoffs.
The organization said it’s looking for targeted savings of $5.7 million, down from $11 million previously estimated, while peers like BC Hydro’s Site C began reporting COVID-19 updates.
A spokesperson for Manitoba Hydro said non-unionized staff taking three days of unpaid leave will save $1.4 million of the $5.7 million savings.
“Three days of unpaid leave for every employee would eliminate layoffs entirely,” the spokesperson said in an email. “For comparison, approximately 240 layoffs would have to occur over a four-month period, while measures like Alberta's worker transition fund aim to support displaced workers, to achieve savings of $4.3 million.”
Grewal says the unpaid days off were a preferred option among the executives, managers, and engineers in an industry that recently saw a Hydro One worker injury case.
She says unions representing the other workers have been asked to respond by next Wednesday.
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.
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.
