The European Union has said that it will not be increasing its 2020 target for reduced carbon emissions from 20 to 30.
European Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger dashed the hopes of larger countries like the UK, France and Germany, which have been pushing to raise the target to 30 by 2020, by claiming that any further increase could harm the European economy. A higher emissions target would also mean stricter regulations and targets for energy and industrial companies.
Last July, Europe's so-called 'Big 3' joined forces to pressure the European Union into raising the target for reducing carbon emissions from 20 to 30, claiming that not aiming for 30 would put Europe in the "slow lane" for low-carbon investment. Reports last year suggested that the global recession would make reaching the 30 target significantly cheaper than originally thought.
"If we go alone to 30, you will only have a faster process of de-industrialization in Europe," Oettinger argued. "I think we need industry in Europe, we need industry in the UK, and industry means CO2 emissions. We are willing to go to 30 if big global partners will follow us, but if not we won't."
Oettinger claimed that pushing the target to 30 by 2020 would result in major European industrial sectors, such as steel, losing companies and jobs to countries with no binding emissions targets.
Last May, the European Commission EC expressed the wish to raise Europe's carbon emissions reduction target to 30, after its own research showed how much cheaper the recession had made achieving that goal. The cost of reaching the 30 target was estimated to be 81 billion euros US $100 billion per year by 2020, only 11 billion euros US $13.6 billion higher than the price tag for reaching the 20 target two years ago.
The EC maintained that reaching a 30 reduction target would reduce imports of oil and gas by 40 billion euros US $49.5 billion per year by 2020. Despite expressing its interest in raising the target to 30, the EC stopped short of trying to implement the policy, which has divided many of the member states and infuriated many industrial groups.
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.
Small Modular Reactors in Canada are advancing through provincial collaboration, offering nuclear energy, clean power and carbon reductions for grids, remote communities, and mines, with factory-built modules, regulatory roadmaps, and pre-licensing by the nuclear regulator.
Key Points
Compact, factory-built nuclear units for clean power, cutting carbon for grids, remote communities, and industry.
✅ Provinces: Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick collaborate
✅ Targets coal replacement, carbon cuts, clean baseload power
✅ Modular, factory-made units; 5-10 year deployment horizon
The premiers of Ontario, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick have committed to collaborate on developing nuclear reactor technology in Canada.
Doug Ford, Scott Moe and Blaine Higgs made the announcement and signed a memorandum of understanding on Sunday in advance of a meeting of all the premiers.
They will be working on the research, development and building of small modular reactors as a way to help their individual provinces reduce carbon emissions and move away from non-renewable energy sources like coal.
Small modular reactors are easy to construct, are safer than large reactors and are regarded as cleaner energy than coal, the premiers say. They can be small enough to fit in a school gym.
SMRs are actually not very close to entering operation in Canada, though Ontario broke ground on its first SMR at Darlington recently, signaling early progress. Natural Resources Canada released an "SMR roadmap" last year, with a series of recommendations about regulation readiness and waste management for SMRs.
In Canada, about a dozen companies are currently in pre-licensing with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which is reviewing their designs.
"Canadians working together, like we are here today, from coast to coast, can play an even larger role in addressing climate change in Canada and around the world," Moe said.
Canada's Paris targets are to lower total emissions 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, and nuclear's role in climate goals has been emphasized by the federal minister in recent remarks. Moe says the reactors would help Saskatchewan reach a 70 per cent reduction by that year.
The provinces' three energy ministries will meet in the new year to discuss how to move forward and by the fall a fully-fledged strategy for the reactors is expected to be ready.
However, don't expect to see them popping up in a nearby field anytime soon. It's estimated it will take five to 10 years before they're built.
Ford lauds economic possibilities The provincial leaders said it could be an opportunity for economic growth, estimating the Canadian market for this energy at $10 billion and the global market at $150 billion.
Ford called it an "opportunity for Canada to be a true leader." At a time when Ottawa and the provinces are at odds, Higgs said it's the perfect time to show unity.
"It's showing how provinces come together on issues of the future."
P.E.I. premier predicts unity at Toronto premiers' meeting No other premiers have signed on to the deal at this point, but Ford said all are welcome and "the more, the merrier."
But developing new energy technologies is a daunting task. Higgs admitted the project will need national support of some kind, though he didn't specify what. The agreement signed by the premiers is also not binding.
About 8.6 per cent of Canada's electricity comes from coal-fired generation. In New Brunswick that figure is much higher — 15.8 per cent — and New Brunswick's small-nuclear debate has intensified as New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs has said he worries about his province's energy producers being hit by the federal carbon tax.
Ontario has no coal-fired power plants, and OPG's SMR commitment aligns with its clean electricity strategy today. In Saskatchewan, burning coal generates 46.6 per cent of the province's electricity.
How would it work? The federal government describes small modular reactors (SMRs) as the "next wave of innovation" in nuclear energy technology, and collaborations like the OPG and TVA partnership are advancing development efforts, and an "important technology opportunity for Canada."
Traditional nuclear reactors used in Canada typically generate about 800 megawatts of electricity, and Ontario is exploring new large-scale nuclear plants alongside SMRs, or enough to power about 600,000 homes at once (assuming that 1 megawatt can power about 750 homes).
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN organization for nuclear co-operation, considers a nuclear reactor to be "small" if it generates under 300 megawatts.
Designs for small reactors ranging from just 3 megawatts to 300 megawatts have been submitted to Canada's nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, for review as part of a pre-licensing process, while plans for four SMRs at Darlington outline a potential build-out pathway that regulators will assess.
Ford rallying premiers to call for large increase in federal health transfers Such reactors are considered "modular" because they're designed to work either independently or as modules in a bigger complex (as is already the case with traditional, larger reactors at most Canadian nuclear power plants). A power plant could be expanded incrementally by adding additional modules.
Modules are generally designed to be small enough to make in a factory and be transported easily — for example, via a standard shipping container.
In Canada, there are three main areas where SMRs could be used:
Traditional, on-grid power generation, especially in provinces looking for zero-emissions replacements for CO2-emitting coal plants. Remote communities that currently rely on polluting diesel generation. Resource extraction sites, such as mining and oil and gas.
Ukraine Nuclear Plant Ownership Proposal outlines U.S. management of Ukrainian reactors amid the Russia-Ukraine war, citing nuclear safety, energy security, and IAEA oversight; Kyiv rejects ownership transfer, especially regarding Zaporizhzhia under Russian control.
Key Points
U.S. control of Ukraine's nuclear plants for safety; Kyiv rejects transfer, citing sovereignty risks at Zaporizhzhia.
✅ U.S. proposal to manage Ukraine's reactors amid war
✅ Kyiv refuses ownership transfer; open to investment
✅ Zaporizhzhia under Russian control raises safety risks
In the midst of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed a controversial idea: Ukraine should give its nuclear power plants to the United States for safekeeping and management. This suggestion came during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wherein Trump expressed the belief that American ownership of these nuclear plants could offer them the best protection amid the ongoing war. But Kyiv, while open to foreign support, has firmly rejected the idea of transferring ownership, especially as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant remains under Russian occupation.
Ukraine’s nuclear energy infrastructure has always been a vital component of its power generation. Before the war, the country’s four nuclear plants supplied nearly half of its electricity. As Russia's military forces target Ukraine's energy infrastructure, including power plants and coal mines, international watchdogs like the IAEA have warned of nuclear risks as these nuclear facilities have become crucial to maintaining the nation’s energy stability. The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, has attracted international concern due to its size and the ongoing threat of a potential nuclear disaster.
Trump’s Proposal and Ukraine’s Response
Trump’s proposal of U.S. ownership came as a response to the ongoing threats posed by Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia plant. Trump argued that the U.S., with its expertise in running nuclear power plants, could safeguard these facilities from further damage and potential nuclear accidents. However, Zelenskyy quickly clarified that the discussion was only focused on the Zaporizhzhia plant, which is currently under Russian control. The Ukrainian president emphasized that Kyiv would not entertain the idea of permanently transferring ownership of its nuclear plants, even though they would welcome investment in their restoration and modernization, particularly after the war.
The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant has been a focal point of geopolitical tensions since Russia's occupation in 2022. Despite being in "cold shutdown" to prevent further risk of explosions, the facility remains a major concern due to its potential to cause a nuclear disaster. Ukrainian officials, along with international observers, have raised alarm about the safety risks posed by the plant, including mines at Zaporizhzhia reported by UN watchdogs, which is situated in a war zone and under the control of Russian forces who are reportedly neglecting proper safety protocols.
The Fear of a Nuclear Provocation
Ukrainians have expressed concerns that Trump’s proposal could embolden Russia to escalate tensions further, even as a potential agreement on power-plant attacks has been discussed by some parties. Some fear that any attempt to reclaim the plant by Ukraine could trigger a Russian provocation, including a deliberate attack on the plant, which would have catastrophic consequences for both Ukraine and the broader region. The analogy is drawn with the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, which Ukraine accuses Russia of sabotaging, an act that severely disrupted water supplies to the Zaporizhzhia plant. Ukrainian military officials, including Ihor Romanenko, a former deputy head of Ukraine’s armed forces, warned that Trump’s suggestion might be an exploitation of Ukraine’s vulnerable position in the ongoing war.
Despite these fears, there are some voices within Ukraine, including former employees of the Zaporizhzhia plant, who believe that a deliberate attack by Russian forces is unlikely. They argue that the Russian military needs the plant in functioning condition for future negotiations, with Russia building new power lines to reactivate the site as part of that calculus, and any damage could reduce its value in such exchanges. However, the possibility of Russian negligence or mismanagement remains a significant risk.
The Strategic Role of Ukraine's Nuclear Plants
Ukraine's nuclear plants were a cornerstone of the country’s energy sector long before the conflict began. In recent years, as Ukraine lost access to coal resources in the Donbas region due to Russian occupation, nuclear power became even more vital, alongside a growing focus on wind power to improve resilience. The country’s reliance on these plants grew as Russia launched a sustained campaign to destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including attacks on nuclear power stations.
The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, holds strategic importance not only due to its size but also because of its location in southeastern Ukraine, an area that has been at the heart of the conflict. Despite being in Russian hands, the plant’s reactors have been safely shut down, reducing the immediate risk of a nuclear explosion. However, the plant’s future remains uncertain, as Russia’s long-term control over it could disrupt Ukraine’s energy security for years to come.
Wider Concerns About Aging Nuclear Infrastructure
Beyond the geopolitical tensions, there are broader concerns about the aging infrastructure of Ukraine's nuclear power plants. International watchdogs, including the environmentalist group Bankwatch, have criticized these facilities as “zombie reactors” due to their outdated designs and safety risks. Experts have called for Ukraine to decommission some of these reactors, fearing that they are increasingly unsafe, especially in the context of a war.
However, Ukrainian officials, including Petro Kotin, head of Energoatom (Ukraine's state-owned nuclear energy company), argue that these reactors are still functional and critical to Ukraine's energy needs. The ongoing conflict, however, complicates efforts to modernize and secure these facilities, which are increasingly vulnerable to both physical damage and potential nuclear hazards.
The Global Implications
Trump's suggestion to take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has raised significant concerns on the international stage. Some fear that such a move could set a dangerous precedent for nuclear security and sovereignty. Others see it as an opportunistic proposal that exploits Ukraine's wartime vulnerability.
While the future of Ukraine's nuclear plants remains uncertain, one thing is clear: these facilities are now at the center of a geopolitical struggle that could have far-reaching consequences for the energy security of Europe and the world. The safety of these plants and their role in Ukraine's energy future will remain a critical issue as the war continues and as Ukraine navigates its relations with both the U.S. and Russia, with the grid even having resumed electricity exports at times.
Germany Nuclear Power Extension keeps Isar 2, Neckarwestheim 2, and Emsland running as Olaf Scholz tackles the energy crisis, soaring gas prices, and EU winter demand, prioritizing grid stability amid the Ukraine war.
Key Points
A temporary policy keeping three German reactors online to enhance grid stability and national energy security.
✅ Extends Isar 2, Neckarwestheim 2, and Emsland operations
✅ Addresses EU energy crisis and soaring gas prices
✅ Prioritizes grid stability while coal phase-out advances
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has ordered the country's three remaining nuclear power stations to keep operating until mid-April, signalling a nuclear U-turn as the energy crisis sparked by Russia's invasion of Ukraine hurts the economy.
Originally Germany planned to phase out all three by the end of this year, continuing its nuclear phaseout policy at the time.
Mr Scholz's order overruled the Greens in his coalition, who wanted two plants kept on standby, to be used if needed.
Nuclear power provides 6% of Germany's electricity.
The decision to phase it out was taken by former chancellor Angela Merkel after Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011.
But gas prices have soared since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February, which disrupted Russia's huge oil and gas exports to the EU, though some officials argue that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue in the short term. In August Russia turned off the gas flowing to Germany via the Nord Stream 1 undersea pipeline.
After relying so heavily on Russian gas Germany is now scrambling to maintain sufficient reserves for the winter. The crisis has also prompted it to restart mothballed coal-fired power stations, with coal generating about a third of its electricity currently, though the plan is to phase out coal in the drive for green energy.
Last year Germany got 55% of its gas from Russia, but in the summer that dropped to 35% and it is declining further.
EU leaders consider how to cap gas prices France sends Germany gas for first time amid crisis Chancellor Scholz's third coalition partner, the liberal Free Democrats (FDP), welcomed his move to keep nuclear power as part of the mix. The three remaining nuclear plants are Isar 2, Neckarwestheim 2 and Emsland, which were ultimately shut down after the extension.
The Social Democrat (SPD) chancellor also called for ministries to present an "ambitious" law to boost energy efficiency and to put into law a phase-out of coal by 2030, aiming for a coal- and nuclear-free economy among major industrial nations.
Last week climate activist Greta Thunberg said it was a "mistake" for Germany to press on with nuclear decommissioning while resorting to coal again, intensifying debate over a nuclear option for climate goals nationwide.
Raindrop Triboelectric Energy Harvesting converts falling water into electricity using Teflon (PTFE) on indium tin oxide and an aluminum electrode, forming a transient water bridge; a low frequency nanogenerator for renewable, static electricity harvesting.
Key Points
A method using PTFE, ITO, and an aluminum electrode to turn raindrop impacts into low frequency electrical power.
✅ PTFE on ITO boosts charge transfer efficiency.
✅ Water bridge links electrodes for rapid discharge.
✅ Low frequency output suits continuous energy harvesting.
Scientists at the City University of Hong Kong have used a Teflon-coated surface and a phenomenon called triboelectricity to generate a charge from raindrops. “Here we develop a device to harvest energy from impinging water droplets by using an architecture that comprises a polytetrafluoroethylene [Teflon] film on an indium tin oxide substrate plus an aluminium electrode,” they explain in their new paper in Nature as a step toward cheap, abundant electricity in the long term.
Triboelectricity itself is an old concept. The word means “friction electricity”—from the Greek tribo, to rub or wear down, which is why a diatribe tires you out—and dates back a long, long time. Static electricity is the most famous kind of triboelectric, and related work has shown electricity from the night sky can be harvested as well in niche setups. In most naturally occurring kinds, scientists have studied triboelectric in order to avoid its effects, like explosions inside of grain silos or hospital workers touching off pure oxygen. (Blowing sand causes an electric field, and NASA even worries about static when astronauts eventually land on Mars.)
One of the most studied forms of intentional and useful triboelectric is in systems such as ocean wave generators where the natural friction of waves meets nanogenerators of triboelectric energy. These even already use Teflon, which has natural conductivity that makes it ideal for this job. But triboelectricity is chaotic, and harnessing it generally involves a bunch of complicated, intersecting variables that can vary with the hourly weather. Promises of static electricity charging devices have often been, well, so much hot, sandy wind.
The scientists at City University of Hong Kong used triboelectric ideas to turn falling raindrops into energy. They say previous versions of the same idea were not very efficient, with materials that didn’t allow for high-fidelity transfer of electrical charge. (Many sources of renewable energy aren’t yet as efficient to turn into power, both because of developing technology and because their renewability means even less efficient use could be better than, for example, fossil fuels, and advances in renewable energy storage could help.)
“[A]chieving a high density of electrical power generation is challenging,” the team explains in its paper. “Traditional hydraulic power generation mainly uses electromagnetic generators that are heavy, bulky, and become inefficient with low water supply.” Diversifying how power is generated by water sources such as oceans and rivers is good for the existing infrastructure as well as new installations.
The research team found that as simulated raindrops fell on their device, the way the water accumulated and spread created a link between their two electrodes, one Teflon-coated and the other aluminum. This watery de facto wire link closes the loop and allows accumulated energy to move through the system. Because it’s a mechanical setup, it’s not limited to salty seawater, and because the medium is already water, its potential isn’t affected by ambient humidity either.
Raindrop energy is very low frequency, which means this tech joins many other existing pushes to harvest continuously available, low frequency natural energy, including underwater 'kites' that exploit steady currents. To make an interface that increases “instantaneous power density by several orders of magnitude over equivalent devices,” as the researchers say they’ve done here, could represent a major step toward feasibility in triboelectric generation.
Ontario Electricity Rebate clarifies hydro rates as OEB aligns bills with inflation, shows true cost per kilowatt hour, and replaces Fair Hydro Plan; transparent on-bill credit offsets increases tied to nuclear refurbishment and supply costs.
Key Points
A line-item credit on Ontario hydro bills that offsets higher electricity costs and reflects OEB-set rates.
✅ Starts Nov. 1 with rates in line with inflation
✅ Shows true per-kWh cost plus separate rebate line
✅ Driven by nuclear refurbishment and supply costs
The Ontario Energy Board says electricity rate changes for households and small businesses will be going up starting next week.
The agency says rates are scheduled to increased by about $1.99 or nearly 2% for a typical residential customer who uses 700 kilowatt hours per month.
The provincial government said in March it would continue to subsidize hydro rates, through legislation to lower rates, and hold any increases to the rate of inflation.
The OEB says the new rates, which the board says are “in line” with inflation, will take effect Nov. 1 as changes for electricity consumers roll out and could be noticed on bills within a few weeks of that date.
Prices are increasing partly due to government legislation aimed at reflecting the actual cost of supply on bills, and partly due to the refurbishment of nuclear facilities, contributing to higher hydro bills for some consumers.
So, effective November 1, Ontario electricity bills will show the true cost of power, after a period of a fixed COVID-19 hydro rate, and will include the new Ontario Electricity Rebate.
Previously the electricity rebate was concealed within the price-per-kilowatt-hour line item on electricity statements, prompting Hydro One bill redesign discussions to improve clarity. This meant customers could not see how much the government rebate was reducing their monthly costs, and bills did not display the true cost of electricity used.
"People deserve facts and accountability, especially when it comes to hydro costs," said Energy Minister Rickford.
The new Ontario Electricity Rebate will appear as a transparent on-bill line item and will replace the former government's Fair Hydro Plan says a government news release. This change comes in response to the Auditor General's special report on the former government's Fair Hydro Plan which revealed that "the government created a needlessly complex accounting/financing structure for the electricity rate reduction in order to avoid showing a deficit or an increase in net debt."
"The Electricity Distributors Association commends the government's commitment to making Ontario's electricity bills more transparent," said Teresa Sarkesian, President of the Electricity Distributors Association. "As the part of our electricity system that is closest to customers, local hydro utilities appreciated the opportunity to work with the government on implementing this important initiative. We worked to ensure that customers who receive their electricity bill will have a clear understanding of the true cost of power and the amount of their on-bill rebate. Local hydro utilities are focused on making electricity more affordable, reducing red tape, and providing customers with a modern and reliable electricity system that works for them."
The average customer will see the electricity line on their bill rise, showing the real cost per kilowatt hour. The new Ontario Electricity Rebate will compensate for that rise, and will be displayed as a separate line item on hydro bills. The average residential bill will rise in line with the rate of inflation.
