Europe might be the heart of the world's energy-from-waste (EfW) power plants, but the region's continued dominance in this sector is being threatened by slow planning and the economic downturn.
Despite having more than 429 installed EfW plants generating revenues in excess of 3.1 billion euros in 2008, the difficulty in obtaining environmental and related permits has restrained the growth of this market considerably, according to researchers Frost & Sullivan.
"The process of obtaining an environmental permit for the construction of a waste-to-energy plant is quite tedious, and a substantial amount of time is spent on it," said Frost & Sullivan Research Associate Karthikeyan Ravikumar. "The delay affects the price of raw materials and, thereby, the overall revenues."
The current economic slowdown will also influence the prospects for market expansion by restricting the amount of investment flowing into the waste-to-energy plants business.
Today, a great deal of support exists for the European Union to move away from landfills towards better alternatives, and this has greatly helped the waste-to-energy business. The diversion of waste from landfills has resulted in the planning and commissioning of many EfW power plants in the last five years.
Ravikumar commented: "The most important driver for the waste-to-energy plants market in Europe has been the Landfill Directive and its waste-diversion targets. This has resulted in the diversion of waste from landfills to waste-to-energy plants."
The creation of more EfW plants is seen as one of the best methods for the treatment of waste diverted from landfills, enabling EU nations to successfully reach landfill diversion targets. The other key benefit is the creation of a heat and power source with low carbon emissions.
The UK has been particularly active in this sector in recent months. Last month, the UK government granted permission to Peel Environmental to construct a 95-megawatt (MW) EfW facility in Cheshire that will burn 600,000 tonnes of waste each year.
Planning permission is also being sought for a new EfW incinerator at the Newhurst Quarry in Leicestershire, England. The proposed plant, which will be operated by waste-management company Biffa Limited, will generate 21 MW of electricity by burning 300,000 tonnes of waste annually.
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.
Quinone-mediated fuel cell uses a bio-inspired organic shuttle to carry electrons and protons to a nearby cobalt catalyst, improving hydrogen conversion, cutting platinum dependence, and raising efficiency while lowering costs for clean electricity.
Key Points
An affordable, bio-inspired fuel cell using an organic quinone shuttle and cobalt catalyst to move electrons efficiently
✅ Organic quinone shuttles electrons to a separate cobalt catalyst
✅ Reduces platinum use, lowering cost of hydrogen power
✅ Bio-inspired design aims to boost efficiency and durability
Fuel cells have long been viewed as a promising power source. But most fuel cells are too expensive, inefficient, or both. In a new approach, inspired by biology, a team has designed a fuel cell using cheaper materials and an organic compound that shuttles electrons and protons.
Fuel cells have long been viewed as a promising power source. These devices, invented in the 1830s, generate electricity directly from chemicals, such as hydrogen and oxygen, and produce only water vapor as emissions. But most fuel cells are too expensive, inefficient, or both.
In a new approach, inspired by biology and published today (Oct. 3, 2018) in the journal Joule, a University of Wisconsin-Madison team has designed a fuel cell using cheaper materials and an organic compound that shuttles electrons and protons.
In a traditional fuel cell, the electrons and protons from hydrogen are transported from one electrode to another, where they combine with oxygen to produce water. This process converts chemical energy into electricity. To generate a meaningful amount of charge in a short enough amount of time, a catalyst is needed to accelerate the reactions.
Right now, the best catalyst on the market is platinum -- but it comes with a high price tag, and while advances like low-cost heat-to-electric materials show promise, they address different conversion pathways. This makes fuel cells expensive and is one reason why there are only a few thousand vehicles running on hydrogen fuel currently on U.S. roads.
Shannon Stahl, the UW-Madison professor of chemistry who led the study in collaboration with Thatcher Root, a professor of chemical and biological engineering, says less expensive metals can be used as catalysts in current fuel cells, but only if used in large quantities. "The problem is, when you attach too much of a catalyst to an electrode, the material becomes less effective," he says, "leading to a loss of energy efficiency."
The team's solution was to pack a lower-cost metal, cobalt, into a reactor nearby, where the larger quantity of material doesn't interfere with its performance. The team then devised a strategy to shuttle electrons and protons back and forth from this reactor to the fuel cell.
The right vehicle for this transport proved to be an organic compound, called a quinone, that can carry two electrons and protons at a time. In the team's design, a quinone picks up these particles at the fuel cell electrode, transports them to the nearby reactor filled with an inexpensive cobalt catalyst, and then returns to the fuel cell to pick up more "passengers."
Many quinones degrade into a tar-like substance after only a few round trips. Stahl's lab, however, designed an ultra-stable quinone derivative. By modifying its structure, the team drastically slowed down the deterioration of the quinone. In fact, the compounds they assembled last up to 5,000 hours -- a more than 100-fold increase in lifetime compared to previous quinone structures.
"While it isn't the final solution, our concept introduces a new approach to address the problems in this field," says Stahl. He notes that the energy output of his new design produces about 20 percent of what is possible in hydrogen fuel cells currently on the market. On the other hand, the system is about 100 times more effective than biofuel cells that use related organic shuttles.
The next step for Stahl and his team is to bump up the performance of the quinone mediators, allowing them to shuttle electrons more effectively and produce more power. This advance would allow their design to match the performance of conventional fuel cells, but with a lower price tag.
"The ultimate goal for this project is to give industry carbon-free options for creating electricity, including thermoelectric materials that harvest waste heat," says Colin Anson, a postdoctoral researcher in the Stahl lab and publication co-author. "The objective is to find out what industry needs and create a fuel cell that fills that hole."
This step in the development of a cheaper alternative could eventually be a boon for companies like Amazon and Home Depot that already use hydrogen fuel cells to drive forklifts in their warehouses.
"In spite of major obstacles, the hydrogen economy, with efforts such as storing electricity in pipelines in Europe, seems to be growing," adds Stahl, "one step at a time."
Financial support for this project was provided by the Center for Molecular Electrocatalysis, an Energy Frontier Research Center funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, and by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) through the WARF Accelerator Program.
Power Grid Attacks surge across substations and transmission lines, straining critical infrastructure as DHS and FBI cite vandalism, domestic extremists, and cybersecurity risks impacting resilience, outages, and grid reliability nationwide.
Key Points
Power Grid Attacks are deliberate strikes on substations and lines to disrupt power and weaken grid reliability.
✅ Physical attacks rose across multiple states and utilities.
✅ DHS and FBI warn of threats to critical infrastructure.
✅ Substation security and grid resilience upgrades urged.
Even before Christmas Day attacks on power substations in five states in the Pacific Northwest and Southeast, similar incidents of attacks, vandalism and suspicious activity were on the rise.
Federal energy reports through August – the most recent available – show an increase in physical attacks at electrical facilities across the nation this year, continuing a trend seen since 2017.
At least 108 human-related events were reported during the first eight months of 2022, compared with 99 in all of 2021 and 97 in 2020. More than a dozen cases of vandalism have been reported since September.
The attacks have prompted a flurry of calls to better protect the nation's power grid, with a renewed focus on protecting the U.S. power grid across sectors, but experts have warned for more than three decades that stepped-up protection was needed.
Attacks on power stations on the rise Twice this year, the Department of Homeland Security warned "a heightened threat environment" remains for the nation, including its critical infrastructure amid reports of suspected Russian breaches of power plant systems.
At least 20 actual physical attacks were reported, compared with six in all of 2021. Suspicious-activity reports jumped three years ago, nearly doubling in 2020 to 32 events. In the first eight months of this year, 34 suspicious incidents were reported. Total human-related incidents – including vandalism, suspicious activity and cyber events such as Russian hackers and U.S. utilities in recent years – are on track to be the highest since the reports started showing such activity in 2011.
Attacks reported in at least 5 states Since September, attacks or potential attacks have been reported on at least 18 additional substations and one power plant in Florida, Oregon, Washington and the Carolinas. Several involved firearms.
In Florida: Six "intrusion events" occurred at Duke Energy substations in September, resulting in at least one brief power outage, according to the News Nation television network, which cited a report the utility sent to the Energy Department. Duke Energy spokesperson Ana Gibbs confirmed a related arrest, but the company declined to comment further.
In Oregon and Washington state: Substations were attacked at least six times in November and December, with firearms used in some cases, local news outlets reported. On Christmas Day, four additional substations were vandalized in Washington State, cutting power to more than 14,000 customers.
In North Carolina: A substation in Maysville was vandalized on Nov. 11. On Dec. 3, shootings that authorities called a "targeted attack" damaged two power substations in Moore County, leaving tens of thousands without power amid freezing temperatures.
In South Carolina: Days later, gunfire was reported near a hydropower plant, but police said the shooting was a "random act."
It's not yet clear whether any of the attacks were coordinated. After the North Carolina attacks, a coordinating council between the electric power industry and the federal government ordered a security evaluation.
FBI mum on its investigations The FBI is looking into some of the attacks, including cyber intrusions where hackers accessed control rooms in past cases, but it hasn't said how many it's investigating or where.
Shelley Lynch, a spokesperson for the FBI's Charlotte field office, confirmed the bureau was investigating the North Carolina attack. The Kershaw County Sheriff's Office reported the FBI was looking into the South Carolina incident.
Utilities in Oregon and Washington told news outlets they were cooperating with the FBI, but spokespeople for the agency's Seattle and Portland field offices said they couldn't confirm or deny an investigation.
Could domestic extremists be involved? In January, the Department of Homeland Security said domestic extremists had been developing "credible, specific plans" since at least 2020, including a Neo-Nazi plot against power stations detailed in a federal complaint, and would continue to "encourage physical attacks against electrical infrastructure."
In February, three men who ascribed to white supremacy and Neo-Nazism pleaded guilty to federal crimes related to a scheme to attack the grid with rifles.
In a news release, Timothy Langan, assistant director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, said the defendants "wanted to attack regional power substations and expected the damage would lead to economic distress and civil unrest."
Why is the power grid so hard to protect? Industry experts, federal officials and others have warned in one report after another since at least 1990 that the power grid was at risk, and a recent grid vulnerability report card highlights dangerous weak points, said Granger Morgan, an engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon University who chaired three National Academies of Sciences reports.
The reports urged state and federal agencies to collaborate to make the system more resilient to attacks and natural disasters such as hurricanes and storms.
"The system is inherently vulnerable, with the U.S. grid experiencing more blackouts than other developed nations in one study. It's spread all across the countryside," which makes the lines and substations easy targets, Morgan said. The grid includes more than 7,300 power plants, 160,000 miles of high-voltage power lines and 55,000 transmission substations.
One challenge is that there's no single entity whose responsibilities span the entire system, Morgan said. And the risks are only increasing as the grid expands to include renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, he said.
Nighttime Thermoelectric Generator converts radiative cooling into renewable energy, leveraging outer space cold; a Stanford-UCLA prototype complements solar, serving off-grid loads with low-power output during peak evening demand, using simple materials on a rooftop.
Key Points
A device converting nighttime radiative cooling into electricity, complementing solar for low-power evening needs.
✅ Uses thermocouples to convert temperature gradients to voltage.
✅ Exploits radiative cooling to outer space for night power.
✅ Complements solar; low-cost parts suit off-grid applications.
Two years ago, one freezing December night on a California rooftop, a tiny light shone weakly with a little help from the freezing night air. It wasn't a very bright glow. But it was enough to demonstrate the possibility of generating renewable power after the Sun goes down.
Working with Stanford University engineers Wei Li and Shanhui Fan, University of California Los Angeles materials scientist Aaswath Raman put together a device that produces a voltage by channelling the day's residual warmth into cooling air, effectively generating electricity from thin air with passive heat exchange.
"Our work highlights the many remaining opportunities for energy by taking advantage of the cold of outer space as a renewable energy resource," says Raman.
"We think this forms the basis of a complementary technology to solar. While the power output will always be substantially lower, it can operate at hours when solar cells cannot."
For all the merits of solar energy, it's just not a 24-7 source of power, although research into nighttime solar cells suggests new possibilities for after-dark generation. Sure, we can store it in a giant battery or use it to pump water up into a reservoir for later, but until we have more economical solutions, nighttime is going to be a quiet time for renewable solar power.
Most of us return home from work as the Sun is setting, and that's when energy demands spike to meet our needs for heating, cooking, entertaining, and lighting.
Unfortunately, we often turn to fossil fuels to make up the shortfall. For those living off the grid, it could require limiting options and going without a few luxuries.
Shanhui Fan understands the need for a night time renewable power source well. He's worked on a number of similar devices, including carbon nanotube generators that scavenge ambient energy, and a recent piece of technology that flipped photovoltaics on its head by squeezing electricity from the glow of heat radiating out of the planet's Sun-warmed surface.
While that clever item relied on the optical qualities of a warm object, this alternative device makes use of the good old thermoelectric effect, similar to thin-film waste-heat harvesting approaches now explored.
Using a material called a thermocouple, engineers can convert a change in temperature into a difference in voltage, effectively turning thermal energy into electricity with a measurable voltage. This demands something relatively toasty on one side and a place for that heat energy to escape to on the other.
The theory is the easy part – the real challenge is in arranging the right thermoelectric materials in such a way that they'll generate a voltage from our cooling surrounds that makes it worthwhile.
To keep costs down, the team used simple, off-the-shelf items that pretty much any of us could easily get our hands on.
They put together a cheap thermoelectric generator and linked it with a black aluminium disk to shed heat in the night air as it faced the sky. The generator was placed inside a polystyrene enclosure sealed with a window transparent to infrared light, and linked to a single tiny LED.
For six hours one evening, the box was left to cool on a roof-top in Stanford as the temperature fell just below freezing. As the heat flowed from the ground into the sky, the small generator produced just enough current to make the light flicker to life.
At its best, the device generated around 0.8 milliwatts of power, corresponding to 25 milliwatts of power per square metre.
That might just be enough to keep a hearing aid working. String several together and you might just be able to keep your cat amused with a simple laser pointer. So we're not talking massive amounts of power.
But as far as prototypes go, it's a fantastic starting point. The team suggests that with the right tweaks and the right conditions, 500 milliwatts per square metre isn't out of the question.
"Beyond lighting, we believe this could be a broadly enabling approach to power generation suitable for remote locations, and anywhere where power generation at night is needed," says Raman.
While we search for big, bright ideas to drive the revolution for renewables, it's important to make sure we don't let the smaller, simpler solutions like these slip away quietly into the night.
IAEA OSART Cernavoda highlights strengthened operational safety at Romania’s Cernavoda NPP, citing improved maintenance practices, simulator training, and deficiency reporting, with ongoing actions on spare parts procurement, procedure updates, and chemical control for nuclear compliance.
Key Points
An IAEA follow-up mission confirming improved operational safety at Cernavoda NPP, with remaining actions tracked.
✅ Enhanced simulator training and crew performance
✅ Improved field deficiency identification and reporting
✅ Ongoing upgrades to procedures, spares, and chemical control
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said yesterday that the operator of Romania’s Cernavoda nuclear power plant had demonstrated "strengthened operational safety" by addressing the findings of an initial IAEA review in 2016. The Operational Safety Review Team (OSART) concluded a five-day follow-up mission on 8 March to the Cernavoda plant, which is on the Danube-Black Sea Canal, about 160 km from Bucharest.
The plant's two 706 MWe CANDU pressurised heavy water reactors, reflecting Canadian nuclear projects, came online in 1996 and 2007, respectively.
The OSART team was led by Fuming Jiang, a senior nuclear safety officer at the IAEA, which recently commended China's nuclear security in separate assessments.
"We saw improvements in key areas, such as the procurement of important spare parts, the identification and reporting of some deficiencies, and some maintenance work practices, as evidenced by relevant performance indicators," Jiang said, noting milestones at nuclear projects worldwide this year.
The team observed that several findings from the 2016 review had been fully addressed, including: enhanced operator crew performance during simulator training; better identification and reporting of deficiencies in the field; and improvement in maintenance work practices.
More time is required, it said, to fully implement some actions, including: further improvements in the procurement of important spare parts with relevance to safety; further enhancement in the revision and update of some operating procedures, drawing on lessons from Pickering NGS life extensions undertaken in Ontario; and control and labelling of some plant chemicals.
Dan Bigu, site vice president of Cernavoda NPP, said the 2016 mission had "proven to be very beneficial", adding that the current follow-up mission would "provide further catalyst support to our journey to nuclear excellence".
The team provided a draft report of the mission to the plant's management and a final report will be submitted to the Romanian government, which recently moved to terminate talks with a Chinese partner on a separate nuclear project, within three months.
OSART missions aim to improve operational safety by objectively assessing safety performance, even as the agency reports mines at Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia plant amid ongoing risks, using the IAEA's safety standards and proposing recommendations and suggestions for improvement where appropriate. The follow-up missions are standard components of the OSART programme and, as the IAEA has warned of risks from attacks on Ukraine's power grids, are typically conducted within two years of the initial mission.
UK Renewables Surpass Nuclear Milestone as wind farms and solar panels outpace atomic output, cutting greenhouse gas emissions. BEIS data show low-carbon power generation rising while onshore wind subsidies and auction timelines face policy debate.
Key Points
It is the quarter when UK wind and solar generated more electricity than nuclear, signaling cleaner, low-carbon growth.
✅ BEIS reports wind and solar at 18.33 TWh vs nuclear 16.69 TWh
✅ Energy sector emissions fell 8% as coal use dropped
✅ Calls grow to reopen onshore wind support via CFD auctions
Wind farms and solar panels, with wind leading the power mix during key periods, produced more electricity than the UK’s eight nuclear power stations for the first time at the end of last year, official figures show.
Britain’s greenhouse gas emissions also continued to fall, dropping 3% in 2017, as coal use fell and the use of renewables climbed, though low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 according to later data.
Energy experienced the biggest drop in emissions of any UK sector, of 8%, while pollution from transport and businesses stayed flat.
Energy industry chiefs said the figures showed that the government should rethink its ban on onshore wind subsidies, a move that ministers have hinted could happen soon.
Lawrence Slade, chief executive of the big six lobby group Energy UK, said: “We need to keep up the pace ... by ensuring that the lowest cost renewables are no longer excluded from the market.”
Across the whole year, low-carbon sources of power – wind, solar, biomass and nuclear – provided a record 50.4% of electricity, up from 45.7% in 2016, when wind beat coal for the first time.
But in the fourth quarter of 2017, high wind speeds, new renewables installations and lower nuclear output saw wind and solar becoming the second biggest source of power for the first time.
Wind and solar generated 18.33 terawatt hours (TWh), with nuclear on 16.69TWh, and the UK later set a new record for wind power during 2019, the figures published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show.
But renewables still have a long way to go to catch up with gas, the UK’s top source of electricity at 36.12TWh, which saw its share of generation fall slightly, though at times wind became the main source as capacity expanded.
Greenpeace said the figures showed the government should capitalise on its lead in renewables and “stop wasting time and money propping up nuclear power”.
Horizon Nuclear Power, a subsidiary of the Japanese conglomerate Hitachi, is in talks with Whitehall officials for a financial support package from the government, which it says it needs by midsummer.
By contrast, large-scale solar and onshore wind projects are not eligible for support, after the Conservative government cut subsidies in 2015.
However the energy minister, Claire Perry, recently told House Magazine that “we will have another auction that brings forward wind and solar, we just haven’t yet said when”.
