AbitibiBowater has reached an agreement with a buyer for its Ontario hydroelectric assets which include power dams in Kenora, Fort Frances and Iroquois Falls.
The company released few details about the deal in a brief statement. The buyers are unnamed, described only by the company as "a major Canadian institutional investor and a private Canadian renewable energy company."
The hydro assets, spun off as a separate company called ACH LP in 2007, are co-owned 75/25 by Abitibi and Quebec pension fund Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec. ACH was valued at $640 million at the time of the sale.
The eight hydroelectric stations that make up ACH LP have a combined installed capacity of 137 MW, with a generating capacity of 131 MW and annualized production of 828 gigawatt hours. The stations include two in Kenora, one at the Fort Frances mill, two remote stations at Sturgeon Falls and Calm Lake in the Rainy River District, a station at Iroquois Falls and two remote stations in that region at Twin Falls and Island Falls.
As part of the ownership deal the company struck with the Caisse de Depot, it will also be selling its 25 per cent stake in ACH to the buying consortium.
In its news release the company said it will net $300 million in cash from the sale of which $100 million will immediately be applied to pay down company debt.
AbitibiBowater also noted its debt to Caisse de Depot of $250 million stemming from financing for the creation of ACH in 2007 will remain on the company books.
As a condition of the sale long-term power purchase agreements for the company's mills in Iroquois Falls and Fort Frances will also remain in place.
"We intend to protect the cost structures of the Iroquois Falls and Fort Frances mills and remain committed to reducing costs," noted Abitibi president Richard Garneau.
The sale of its the Ontario hydro assets comes after the company emerged from credit protection in Canada and the U.S. this year.
Between April 2009 and December of 2010 the company sold $940 million in assets including its $615 million stake in group of Quebec hydroelectric stations. When it emerged from creditor protection overall debt had been reduced to $850 million from $6.8 billion. Most of the reduced debt was settled by swapping debt of equity in new stock issue with unsecured creditors.
The hydro sale will require government approval and other conditions being met said the company, a process it expects to take about 60 days.
Municipal officials in Iroquois Falls have expressed concerns about the sale since the company announced it was looking for a possible buyer last year.
Earlier this month Iroquois Falls Mayor Gilles Forget said he would oppose any sale as he feared it would eventually mean an end to the low cost power supply the hydro dam supplies the mill in his community.
Forget said he would taking his case to the provincial government which holds the water lease required to generate power at the dams.
Forget said the dams have always allowed the Iroquois Falls operation to be a cost-efficient mill. Without them, he said, it loses its power advantage.
"I was quite vocal in telling him Abitibi CEO Richard Garneau that I was going to try and stop the process and the sale and I would fight this right to the end," Forget said.
The company will also have to satisfy Fort Frances of the security of its open-ended arrangement for a block of power, or the cash equivalent, it receives from the ACH power station there. As part of the original mill construction plans in Fort Frances begun in 1905, the municipality approved the transfer of water rights to the mill in exchange for 4,000 horsepower 3 MW of electricity to be supplied annually to the town at a nominal cost. That arrangement, worth about $2 million annually to the town's residents in reduced electrical bills these days, was confirmed in a Supreme Court of Canada decision in 1983 when Boise Cascade, the mill and dam owners at the time, attempted to cancel the power supply arrangement.
We Energies rate increase driven by nuclear energy costs at Point Beach, Wisconsin PSC filings, and rising utility rates, affecting electricity prices for residential, commercial, and industrial customers while supporting WEC carbon reduction goals.
Key Points
A 2021 utility rate hike to recover Point Beach nuclear costs, modestly raising Wisconsin electricity bills.
✅ Residential bills rise about $0.73 per month
✅ Driven by $55.82/MWh Point Beach contract price
✅ PSC review and consumer advocates assessing alternatives
Wisconsin's largest utility company is again asking regulators to raise rates to pay for the rising cost of nuclear energy.
We Energies says it needs to collect an additional $26.5 million next year, an increase of about 3.4%.
For residential customers, that would translate to about 73 cents more per month, or an increase of about 0.7%, while some nearby states face steeper winter rate hikes according to regulators. Commercial and industrial customers would see an increase of 1% to 1.5%, according to documents filed with the Public Service Commission.
If approved, it would be the second rate increase in as many years for about 1.1 million We Energies customers, who saw a roughly 0.7% increase in 2020 after four years of no change, while Manitoba Hydro rate increase has been scaled back for next year, highlighting regional contrasts.
We Energies' sister utility, Wisconsin Public Service Corp., has requested a 0.13% increase, which would add about 8 cents to the average monthly residential bill, which went up 1.6% this year.
We Energies said a rate increase is needed to cover the cost of electricity purchased from the Point Beach nuclear power plant, which according to filings with the Securities Exchange Commission will be $55.82 per megawatt-hour next year.
So far this year, the average wholesale price of electricity in the Midwestern market was a little more than $25.50 per megawatt-hour, and recent capacity market payouts on the largest U.S. grid have fallen sharply, reflecting broader market conditions.
Owned and operated by NextEra Energy Resources, the 1,200-megawatt Point Beach Nuclear Plant is Wisconsin's last operational reactor. We Energies sold the plant for $924 million in 2007 and entered into a contract to purchase its output for the next two decades.
Brendan Conway, a spokesman for WEC Energy Group, said customers have benefited from the sale of the plant, which will supply more than a third of We Energies' demand and is a key component in WEC's strategy to cut 80% of its carbon emissions by 2050, amid broader electrification trends nationwide.
"Without the Point Beach plant, carbon emissions in Wisconsin would be significantly higher," Conway said.
As part of negotiations on its last rate case, WEC agreed to work with consumer advocates and the PSC to review alternatives to the contracted price increases, which were structured to begin rising steeply in 2018.
Tom Content, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, said the contract will be an issue for We Energies customers into the next decade
"It's a significant source (of energy) for the entire state," Content said. "But nuclear is not cheap."
WEC filed the rate requests Monday, one week after the withdrawing similar applications. Conway said the largely unchanged filings had "undergone additional review by senior management."
WEC last week raised its second quarter profit forecast to 67 to 69 cents per share, up from the previous range of 58 to 62 cents per share.
The company credited better than expected sales in April and May along with operational cost savings and higher authorized profit margin for American Transmission Company, of which WEC is the majority owner.
Wisconsin's other investor-owned utilities have reported lower than expected fuel costs for 2020 and 2021, even as emergency fuel stock programs in New England are expected to cost millions this year.
Alliant Energy has proposed using about $31 million in fuel savings to help freeze rates in 2021, aligning with its carbon-neutral electricity plans as it rolls out long-term strategy, while Xcel Energy is proposing to lower its rates by 0.8% next year and refund its customers about $9.7 million in fuel costs for this year.
Madison Gas and Electric is negotiating a two-year rate structure with consumer groups who are optimistic that fuel savings can help prevent or offset rate increases, though some utilities are exploring higher minimum charges for low-usage customers to recover fixed costs.
High-Temperature Superconducting Cables enable lossless, high-voltage, underground transmission for grid modernization, linking renewable energy to cities with liquid nitrogen cooling, boosting efficiency, cutting emissions, reducing land use, and improving resilience against disasters and extreme weather.
Key Points
Liquid-nitrogen-cooled power cables delivering electricity with near-zero losses, lower voltage, and greater resilience.
✅ Near-lossless transmission links renewables to cities efficiently
✅ Operate at lower voltage, reducing substation size and cost
✅ Underground, compact, and resilient to extreme weather events
For most of us, transmitting power is an invisible part of modern life. You flick the switch and the light goes on.
But the way we transport electricity is vital. For us to quit fossil fuels, we will need a better grid, with macrogrid planning connecting renewable energy in the regions with cities.
Electricity grids are big, complex systems. Building new high-voltage transmission lines often spurs backlash from communities, as seen in Hydro-Qu e9bec power line opposition over aesthetics and land use, worried about the visual impact of the towers. And our 20th century grid loses around 10% of the power generated as heat.
One solution? Use superconducting cables for key sections of the grid. A single 17-centimeter cable can carry the entire output of several nuclear plants. Cities and regions around the world have done this to cut emissions, increase efficiency, protect key infrastructure against disasters and run powerlines underground. As Australia prepares to modernize its grid, it should follow suit with smarter electricity infrastructure initiatives seen elsewhere. It's a once-in-a-generation opportunity.
What's wrong with our tried-and-true technology? Plenty.
The main advantage of high voltage transmission lines is they're relatively cheap.
But cheap to build comes with hidden costs later. A survey of 140 countries found the electricity currently wasted in transmission accounts for a staggering half-billion tons of carbon dioxide—each year.
These unnecessary emissions are higher than the exhaust from all the world's trucks, or from all the methane burned off at oil rigs.
Inefficient power transmission also means countries have to build extra power plants to compensate for losses on the grid.
Labor has pledged A$20 billion to make the grid ready for clean energy, and international moves such as US-Canada cross-border approvals show the scale of ambition needed. This includes an extra 10,000 kilometers of transmission lines. But what type of lines? At present, the plans are for the conventional high voltage overhead cables you see dotting the countryside.
System planning by Australia's energy market operator shows many grid-modernizing projects will use last century's technologies, the conventional high voltage overhead cables, even as Europe's HVDC expansion gathers pace across its network. If these plans proceed without considering superconductors, it will be a huge missed opportunity.
How could superconducting cables help? Superconduction is where electrons can flow without resistance or loss. Built into power cables, it holds out the promise of lossless electricity transfer, over both long and short distances. That's important, given Australia's remarkable wind and solar resources are often located far from energy users in the cities.
High voltage superconducting cables would allow us to deliver power with minimal losses from heat or electrical resistance and with footprints at least 100 times smaller than a conventional copper cable for the same power output.
And they are far more resilient to disasters and extreme weather, as they are located underground.
Even more important, a typical superconducting cable can deliver the same or greater power at a much lower voltage than a conventional transmission cable. That means the space needed for transformers and grid connections falls from the size of a large gym to only a double garage.
Bringing these technologies into our power grid offers social, environmental, commercial and efficiency dividends.
Unfortunately, while superconductors are commonplace in Australia's medical community (where they are routinely used in MRI machines and diagnostic instruments) they have not yet found their home in our power sector.
One reason is that superconductors must be cooled to work. But rapid progress in cryogenics means you no longer have to lower their temperature almost to absolute zero (-273℃). Modern "high temperature" superconductors only need to be cooled to -200℃, which can be done with liquid nitrogen—a cheap, readily available substance.
Overseas, however, they are proving themselves daily. Perhaps the most well-known example to date is in Germany's city of Essen. In 2014, engineers installed a 10 kilovolt (kV) superconducting cable in the dense city center. Even though it was only one kilometer long, it avoided the higher cost of building a third substation in an area where there was very limited space for infrastructure. Essen's cable is unobtrusive in a meter-wide easement and only 70cm below ground.
Superconducting cables can be laid underground with a minimal footprint and cost-effectively. They need vastly less land.
A conventional high voltage overhead cable requires an easement of about 130 meters wide, with pylons up to 80 meters high to allow for safety. By contrast, an underground superconducting cable would take up an easement of six meters wide, and up to 2 meters deep.
This has another benefit: overcoming community skepticism. At present, many locals are concerned about the vulnerability of high voltage overhead cables in bushfire-prone and environmentally sensitive regions, as well as the visual impact of the large towers and lines. Communities and farmers in some regions are vocally against plans for new 85-meter high towers and power lines running through or near their land.
Climate extremes, unprecedented windstorms, excessive rainfall and lightning strikes can disrupt power supply networks, as the Victorian town of Moorabool discovered in 2021.
What about cost? This is hard to pin down, as it depends on the scale, nature and complexity of the task. But consider this—the Essen cable cost around $20m in 2014. Replacing the six 500kV towers destroyed by windstorms near Moorabool in January 2020 cost $26 million.
While superconducting cables will cost more up front, you save by avoiding large easements, requiring fewer substations (as the power is at a lower voltage), and streamlining approvals.
Where would superconductors have most effect? Queensland. The sunshine state is planning four new high-voltage transmission projects, to be built by the mid-2030s. The goal is to link clean energy production in the north of the state with the population centers of the south, similar to sending Canadian hydropower to New York to meet demand.
Right now, there are major congestion issues between southern and central Queensland, and subsea links like Scotland-England renewable corridors highlight how to move power at scale. Strategically locating superconducting cables here would be the best location, serving to future-proof infrastructure, reduce emissions and avoid power loss.
BC Hydro EV Charging Stations expand provincewide with DC fast chargers, 80% in 30 minutes at 35 c/kWh, easing range anxiety across Vancouver, Vancouver Island, Coquihalla Highway, East Kootenay, between Kamloops and Prince George.
Key Points
Public DC fast-charging network across B.C. enabling 80% charge in 30 minutes to cut EV range anxiety.
✅ 28 new stations added; 30 launched in 2016
✅ 35 c/kWh; about $3.50 per tank equivalent
✅ Coverage: Vancouver, Island, Coquihalla, East Kootenay
B.C. Hydro is expanding its network of electric vehicle charging stations.
The Crown utility says 28 new stations complete the second phase of its fast-charging network and are in addition to the 30 stations opened in 2016.
Thirteen of the stations are in Metro Vancouver, seven are on Vancouver Island, including one at the Pacific Rim Visitor Centre near Tofino, another is in Campbell River, and two have opened on the Coquihalla segment of B.C.'s Electric Highway at the Britton Creek rest area.
A further six stations are located throughout the East Kootenay and B.C. Hydro says the next phase of its program will connect drivers travelling between Kamloops and Prince George, while stations in Prince Rupert are also being planned.
BC Hydro has also opened a fast charging site in Lillooet, illustrating expansion into smaller communities.
Hydro spokeswoman Mora Scott says the stations can charge an electric vehicle to 80 per cent in just 30 minutes, at a cost of 35 cents per kilowatt hour.
Mora Scott says that translates to roughly $3.50 for the equivalent of a full tank of gas in the average four-cylinder car.
“The number of electric vehicles on B.C. roads is increasing, there’s currently around 9,000 across the province, and we actually expect that number to rise to 300,000 by 2030,” Scott says in a news release.
In partnership with municipalities, regional districts and several businesses, B.C. Hydro has been installing charging stations throughout the province since 2012 with support from the provincial and federal governments and programs such as EV charger rebates available to residents.
Scott says the utility wants to ensure the stations are placed where drivers need them so charging options are available provincewide.
“One big thing that we know drivers of electric vehicles worry about is the concept called range anxiety, that the stations aren’t going to be where they need them,” she says.
Several models of electric vehicle are now capable of travelling up to 500 kilometres on a single charge, says Scott.
BC Hydro president Chris O’Riley says the new charging sites will encourage electric vehicle drivers to explore B.C. this summer.
Eviation Collapse underscores electric aviation headwinds, from Alice aircraft battery limits to FAA/EASA certification hurdles, funding shortfalls, and leadership instability, reshaping sustainability roadmaps for regional airliners and future zero-emission flight.
Key Points
Eviation Collapse is the 2025 shutdown of Eviation Aircraft, revealing battery, certification, and funding hurdles.
✅ Battery energy density limits curtailed Alice's range
✅ Funding gaps and leadership churn undermined execution
The electric aviation industry was poised to revolutionize the skies through an aviation revolution with startups like Eviation Aircraft leading the charge to bring environmentally friendly, cost-efficient electric airplanes into commercial use. However, in a shocking turn of events, Eviation has faced an abrupt collapse, signaling challenges that may impact the future of electric flight.
Eviation’s Vision and Early Promise
Founded in 2015, Eviation was an ambitious electric airplane startup with the goal of changing the way the world thinks about aviation. The company’s flagship product, the Alice aircraft, was designed to be an all-electric regional airliner capable of carrying up to 9 passengers. With a focus on sustainability, reduced operating costs, and a quieter flight experience, Alice attracted attention as one of the most promising electric aircraft in development.
Eviation’s aircraft was aimed at replacing small, inefficient, and environmentally damaging regional aircraft, reducing emissions in the aviation industry. The startup’s vision was bold: to create an airplane that could offer all the benefits of electric power – lower operating costs, less noise, and a smaller environmental footprint. Their goal was not only to attract major airlines but also to pave the way for a more sustainable future in aviation.
The company’s early success was driven by substantial investments and partnerships. It garnered attention from aviation giants and venture capitalists alike, drawing support for its innovative technology. In fact, in 2019, Eviation secured a deal with the Israeli airline, El Al, for several aircraft, a deal that seemed to promise a bright future for the company.
Challenges in the Electric Aviation Industry
Despite its early successes and strong backing, Eviation faced considerable challenges that eventually contributed to its downfall. The electric aviation sector, as promising as it seemed, has always been riddled with hurdles – from battery technology to regulatory approvals, and compounded by Europe’s EV slump that dampened clean-transport sentiment, the path to producing commercially viable electric airplanes has proven more difficult than initially anticipated.
The first major issue Eviation encountered was the slow development of battery technology. While electric car companies like Tesla were able to scale their operations quickly during the electric vehicle boom due to advancements in battery efficiency, aviation technology faced a more significant obstacle. The energy density required for a plane to fly long distances with sufficient payload was far greater than what existing battery technology could offer. This limitation severely impacted the range of the Alice aircraft, preventing it from meeting the expectations set by its creators.
Another challenge was the lengthy regulatory approval process for electric aircraft. Aviation is one of the most regulated industries in the world, and getting a new aircraft certified for flight takes time and rigorous testing. Although Eviation’s Alice was touted as an innovative leap in aviation technology, the company struggled to navigate the complex process of meeting the safety and operational standards required by aviation authorities, such as the FAA and EASA.
Financial Difficulties and Leadership Changes
As challenges mounted, Eviation’s financial situation became increasingly precarious. The company struggled to secure additional funding to continue its development and scale operations. Investors, once eager to back the promising startup, grew wary as timelines stretched and costs climbed, amid a U.S. EV market share dip in early 2024, tempering enthusiasm. With the electric aviation market still in its early stages, Eviation faced stiff competition from more established players, including large aircraft manufacturers like Boeing and Airbus, who also began to invest heavily in electric and hybrid-electric aircraft technologies.
Leadership instability also played a role in Eviation’s collapse. The company went through several executive changes over a short period, and management’s inability to solidify a clear vision for the future raised concerns among stakeholders. The lack of consistent leadership hindered the company’s ability to make decisions quickly and efficiently, further exacerbating its financial challenges.
The Sudden Collapse
In 2025, Eviation made the difficult decision to shut down its operations. The company announced the closure after failing to secure enough funding to continue its development and meet its ambitious production goals. The sudden collapse of Eviation sent shockwaves through the electric aviation sector, where many had placed their hopes on the startup’s innovative approach to electric flight.
The failure of Eviation has left many questioning the future of electric aviation. While the industry is still in its infancy, Eviation’s downfall serves as a cautionary tale about the challenges of bringing cutting-edge technology to the skies. The ambitious vision of a sustainable, electric future in aviation may still be achievable, but the path to success will require overcoming significant technological, regulatory, and financial obstacles.
What’s Next for Electric Aviation?
Despite Eviation’s collapse, the electric aviation sector is far from dead. Other companies, such as Joby Aviation, Vertical Aerospace, and Ampaire, are continuing to develop electric and hybrid-electric aircraft, building on milestones like Canada’s first commercial electric flight that signal ongoing demand for green alternatives to traditional aviation.
Moreover, major aircraft manufacturers are doubling down on their own electric aircraft projects. Boeing, for example, has launched several initiatives aimed at reducing carbon emissions in aviation, while Harbour Air’s point-to-point e-seaplane flight showcases near-term regional progress, and Airbus is testing a hybrid-electric airliner prototype. The collapse of Eviation may slow down progress, but it is unlikely to derail the broader movement toward electric flight entirely.
The lessons learned from Eviation’s failure will undoubtedly inform the future of the electric aviation sector. Innovation, perseverance, and a steady stream of investment will be critical for the success of future electric aircraft startups, as exemplified by Harbour Air’s research-driven electric aircraft efforts that highlight the value of sustained R&D. While the dream of electric planes may have suffered a setback, the long-term vision of cleaner, more sustainable aviation is still alive.
Ontario Electricity COVID-19 Recovery Rate sets a fixed price of 12.8 cents/kWh, replacing time-of-use billing and aligning costs across off-peak, mid-peak, and on-peak periods per Ontario Energy Board guidance through Oct. 31.
Key Points
A flat 12.8 cents/kWh electricity price in Ontario that temporarily replaces time-of-use rates from June 1 to Oct. 31.
✅ Fixed 12.8 cents/kWh, all hours, June 1 to Oct. 31
✅ Higher than off-peak 10.1, lower than mid/on-peak
✅ Based on Ontario Energy Board average cost
Ontario residents will now have to pay a fixed electricity price that is higher than the off-peak hydro rate many in the province have been allowed to pay so far due to the pandemic.
The announcement, which was made in a news release on Saturday, comes after the Ontario government suspended the normal “time-of-use” billing system on March 24 and as electricity rates are about to change across Ontario.
The government moved all customers onto the lowest winter rate in response to the pandemic as emergency measures meant more people would be at home during the middle of the day when electricity costs are the highest.
Now, the government has introduced a new “COVID-19 recovery rate” of 12.8 cents per kilowatt hour at all times of the day. The fixed price will be in place from June 1 to Oct. 31.
The fixed price is higher than the winter off-peak price, which stood at 10.1 per kilowatt hour. However, it is lower than the mid-peak rate of 14.4 per kilowatt hour and the high-peak rate of 20.8 per kilowatt hour, even though typical bills may rise as fixed pricing ends for many households.
“Since March 24, 2020, we have invested just over $175 million to deliver emergency rate relief to residential, farm and small business electricity consumers by suspending time-of-use electricity pricing,” Greg Rickford, the minister of energy, northern development and mines, said in a news release.
“This investment was made to protect the people of Ontario from a marked increase in electricity rates as they did their part by staying home to prevent the further spread of the virus.”
Rickford said that the COVID-19 recovery rate is based on the average cost of electricity set by the Ontario Energy Board.
“This fixed rate will continue to suspend time-of-use prices in a fiscally responsible manner,” he said. "Consumers will have greater flexibility to use electricity when they need it without paying on-peak and mid-peak prices, and some may benefit from ultra-low electricity rates under new time-of-use options."
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.
