Calgary-based Greengate Power is one step closer to building what could be Alberta's largest wind energy project, after entering into a joint venture agreement with Capital Power Corporation.
"Right now we are in the final stages of development with the project, which includes finalizing finance, and completing the detailed engineering," said Dan Balaban, president and CEO of Greengate Power.
"The joint venture is an important element of the financing arranged. We are pleased to have one of CanadaÂ’s top power producers as a partner in the project."
Greengate Power Corporation and Capital Power L.P., which is a subsidiary of Capital Power Corporation have entered an agreement to develop, construct and operate the Halkirk I Wind Project.
Under the terms of the agreement, each party will own 50 per cent of the project.
It will be located on about 60,000 acres of private land, near the Village of Halkirk, which is about 40 kilometres east of the Town of Stettler.
"Going forward Greengate will be responsible for development and Capital Power will manage construction and operation of the project," said Balaban.
When completed, the $350 million Halkirk I project will produce enough electricity to power about 50,000 homes.
"We expect to be under construction later this year and be fully operational by 2012. We are finalizing the schedule and construction will take between nine and 12 months," he said.
The project is divided into two 150 MW phases – Halkirk I and Halkirk II.
The Halkirk I Wind Project involves the construction of 100 wind turbines, each rated at 1.5 MW, for a total installed capacity of 150 MW.
Each wind turbine generator will be mounted on top of an 80 metre tower with a rotor diameter of 77 metres.
The turbines are connected to a substation.
The proposed wind farm has been approved for a 34.5-kilovolt gathering system, which consists of underground and overhead power to collect the power generated by the turbines.
The project will create 100 to 200 jobs during construction as well as between five and 10 full-time jobs when the facility is in operation.
When completed, the $350 million project will produce enough electricity to power about 50,000 homes and will be AlbertaÂ’s largest operating wind energy project.
A project near Taber Alberta currently holds that title. Enmax began the operation of AlbertaÂ’s largest wind farm in the fall of 2007, after 16 months of construction.
The Taber wind farm is located southeast of Taber and is an 80 MW facility.
This is enough electricity to provide power for about 32,000 homes.
Halkirk I is 10km from a 240kv transmission line with available capacity and Greengate has obtained approval from the Alberta Electric System Operator AESO to connect to this transmission line.
Greengate has a strategy for wind farm development, which is based on finding windy areas along transmission lines.
The company has nine projects under development, which represent a $4 billion investment and 1,550 MW of electricity. This is about 15 per cent of AlbertaÂ’s total power generation.
The next project in the portfolio is the 300 MW Blackspring Ridge wind power project.
“When completed in late 2012 or early 2013, this project will be the largest wind energy project in Canada,” said Balaban.
"Our vision is to be CanadaÂ’s largest pure play energy producer."
Great British Energy could cut UK electricity costs via public ownership, investing in clean energy like wind, solar, tidal, and nuclear, curbing windfall profits, stabilizing bills, and reinvesting returns through a state-backed generator.
Key Points
A proposed state-backed UK generator investing in clean power to cut costs and return gains to taxpayers.
✅ Publicly owned investment in wind, solar, tidal, and nuclear
✅ Cuts electricity bills by reducing generators' windfall profits
✅ Funded via bonds or asset buyouts; non-profit operations
A publicly owned electricity generation firm could save Britons nearly £21bn a year, according to new analysis that bolsters Labour’s case to launch a national energy company if the party gains power.
Thinktank Common Wealth has calculated that the cost of generating electricity to power homes and businesses could be reduced by £20.8bn or £252 per household a year under state ownership, according to a report seen by the Guardian.
The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, has committed to creating “a publicly owned national champion in clean energy” named Great British Energy.
Starmer is yet to lay out the exact structure of the mooted company, although he has said it would not involve nationalising existing assets, or become involved in the transmission grid or retail supply of energy.
Starmer instead hopes to create a state-backed entity that would invest in clean energy – wind, solar, tidal, nuclear, large-scale storage and other emerging technologies – creating jobs and ensuring windfalls from the growth in low carbon power feed back to the government.
The Common Wealth report, which analysed scenarios for reforming the electricity market, said that a huge saving on electricity costs could be made by buying out assets such as wind, solar and biomass generators on older contracts and running them on a non-profit basis. Funding the measure could require a government bond issuance, or some form of compulsory purchase process.
Last year the government attempted to get companies operating low carbon generators, including nuclear power plants, on older contracts to switch to contracts for difference (CfD), allowing any outsized profits to flow back to taxpayers. However, the government later decided to tax eligible firms through the electricity generator levy instead.
The Common Wealth study concluded that a publicly owned low carbon energy generator would best deliver on Britain’s climate and economic goals, would eliminate windfall profits made by generators and would cut household bills significantly.
MPs and campaigners have argued that Britain’s energy companies should be nationalised since the energy crisis, even as coal-free records have multiplied and renewables still need more support, which has resulted in North Sea oil and gas producers and electricity generators making windfall profits, and a string of retail suppliers collapsing, costing taxpayers billions. Detractors of nationalisation in energy argue it can stifle innovation and expose taxpayers to huge financial risks.
Common Wealth pointed out that more than 40% of the UK’s offshore wind generation capacity was publicly owned by overseas national entities, meaning the benefits of high electricity prices linked to the war in Ukraine had flowed back to other governments.
The study found the publicly owned generator model would create more savings than other options, including a drive for voluntary CfDs; splitting the generation market between low carbon and fossil fuel sources at a time when wind and solar have outproduced nuclear, and a “single buyer model” with nationalised retail suppliers.
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.
FERC Hydropower Licensing Dispute centers on FERC authority, Clean Water Act compliance, state water quality certifications, Federal Power Act timelines, and Army Corps dams on West Virginia's Monongahela River licenses.
Key Points
An inquiry into FERC's licensing process and state water quality authority for hydropower at Monongahela River dams.
✅ Questions on omitted state water quality conditions
✅ Debate over starting Clean Water Act certification timelines
✅ Potential impacts on states' rights and licensing schedules
As federal lawmakers, including Democrats pressing FERC, plan to consider a bill that would expand Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing authority, questions emerged on Tuesday about the process used by FERC to issue two hydropower licenses for existing dams in West Virginia.
In a letter to FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee, Democratic leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as electricity pricing changes were being debated, raised questions about hydropower licenses issued for two dams operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Monongahela River in West Virginia.
U.S. Reps. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy, Bobby Rush (D-IL), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Environment, and John Sarbanes (D-MD), amid Maryland clean energy enforcement concerns, questioned why FERC did not incorporate all conditions outlined in a West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection water quality certificate into plans for the projects.
“By denying the state its allotted time to review this application and submit requirements on these licenses, FERC is undermining the state’s authority under the Clean Water Act and Federal Power Act to impose conditions that will ensure water quality standards are met,” the letter stated.
The House of Representatives was slated to consider the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017, H.R. 3043, later in the week. The measure would expand FERC authority over licensing processes, a theme mirrored in Maine's transmission line debate over interstate energy projects. Opponents of the bill argue that the changes would make it more difficult for states to protect their clean water interests.
West Virginia has announced plans to challenge FERC hydropower licenses for the dams on the Monongahela River, echoing Northern Pass opposition seen in New Hampshire.
ACCC energy underwriting guarantee proposes government-backed certainty for new generation, cutting electricity prices and supporting gas, pumped hydro, renewables, batteries, and potentially coal-fired power, addressing market failure without direct subsidies.
Key Points
A tech-neutral, government-backed plan underwriting new generation revenue to increase certainty and cut power prices.
✅ Government guarantee provides a revenue floor for new generators.
✅ Intended to reduce bills by up to $400 and address market failure.
Australian Taxpayers won't directly fund any new power plants despite some Coalition MPs seizing on a new report to call for a coal-fired power station.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission recommended the government give financial certainty to new power plants, guaranteeing energy will be bought at a cheap price if it can't be sold, as part of an electricity market plan to avoid threats to supply.
It's part of a bid to cut up to $400 a year from average household power prices.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the finance proposal had merit, but he ruled out directly funding specific types of power generation.
"We are not in the business of subsidising one technology or another," he told reporters in Queensland today.
"We've done enough of that. Frankly, there's been too much of that."
Renewable subsidies, designed in the 1990s to make solar and wind technology more affordable, have worked and will end in 2020.
Some Coalition MPs claim the ACCC's recommendation to underwrite power generation is vindication for their push to build new coal-fired power plants.
But ACCC chair Rod Sims said no companies had proposed building new coal plants - instead they're trying to build new gas projects, pumped hydro or renewable projects.
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said Mr Turnbull was offering solutions years away, having overseen a rise in power prices over the past year.
"You don't just go down to K-Mart and get a coal-fired power station off the shelf," Mr Shorten told reporters, admitting he had not read the ACCC report.
Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg said the recommendation to underwrite new power generators had a lot of merit, as it would address a market failure highlighted by AEMO warnings about reduced reserves.
"What they're saying is the government needs to step in here to provide some sort of assurance," Mr Frydenberg told 9NEWS today.
He said that could include coal, gas, renewable energy or battery storage.
Deputy Nationals leader Bridget McKenzie said science should determine which technology would get the best outcomes for power bills, with a scrapping coal report suggesting it can be costly.
Mr Turnbull said there was strong support for the vast majority of the ACCC's 56 recommendations, but the government would carefully consider the report, which sets out a blueprint to cut electricity bills by 25 percent.
Acting Greens leader Adam Bandt said Australia should exit coal-fired power in favour of renewable energy to cut pollution.
In contrast, Canada has seen the Stop the Shock campaign advocate a return to coal power in some provinces.
The Australian Energy Council, which represents 21 major energy companies, said the government should consult on changes to avoid "unintended consequences".
PG&E dividend halt for wildfire mitigation directs cash from shareholders to tree clearing, wildfire risk reduction, and probation compliance under Judge William Alsup, amid bankruptcy, Camp Fire liabilities, and power line vegetation management mandates.
Key Points
A court-ordered dividend halt funding vegetation clearance and wildfire mitigation as PG&E meets probation terms.
✅ Judge Alsup bars dividends until mitigation targets met
✅ 375,000 trees cleared near power lines in high-risk zones
✅ Measures tied to probation amid bankruptcy and liabilities
A U.S. judge said on Tuesday that PG&E may not resume paying dividends and must use the money to fund its plan for cutting down trees to reduce the risk of wildfires in California, stopping short of more costly measures he proposed earlier this year.
The new criminal probation terms for PG&E are modest compared with ones the judge had in mind in January and that PG&E said could have cost upwards of $150 billion.
The terms will, however, keep PG&E under the supervision of Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and hold the company, which also is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy and whose bankruptcy plan has drawn support from wildfire victims, to its target for clearing areas around its power lines of some 375,000 trees this year.
PG&E's probation stems from its felony conviction after a deadly 2010 natural gas pipeline blast in San Bruno, California, near San Francisco, that killed eight people and injured 58 others.
PG&E filed for bankruptcy protection on Jan. 29 in anticipation of liabilities from wildfires, including a catastrophic 2018 blaze, the Camp Fire, for which PG&E later pleaded guilty to 85 counts in state court. It killed 86 people in the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in California history.
At a January hearing, Alsup, who is overseeing PG&E's probation, said he felt compelled to propose additional probation terms in the aftermath of Camp Fire. San Francisco-based PG&E expects its equipment will be found to have caused the blaze.
The probation process is separate from San Francisco-based PG&E's bankruptcy filing and from operational measures such as its pandemic response and shutoff moratorium implemented to protect customers.
As the company faces $30 billion in wildfire liabilities and bankruptcy proceedings and has opened a wildfire assistance program for affected residents, the energy company is expected to name as its new chief executive Bill Johnson, a source said on Tuesday. Johnson has been the CEO of the Tennessee Valley Authority since 2013 and is retiring on Friday.
Additional probation terms imposed by Alsup on Tuesday will require PG&E to meet goals in a wildfire mitigation plan it unveiled in February.
The goals include removing 375,000 dead, dying or hazardous trees from areas at high risk of wildfires in 2019, compared with 160,000 last year.
The judge said PG&E will not be able to pay shareholders until it complies with his new probation terms.
Shares fell 2% on Tuesday to close at $17.66 on the New York Stock Exchange and are down 63% since November 2018 due to concerns about the company's bankruptcy and wildfire liabilities, though the utility has said rates are set to stabilize in 2025 as part of its long-term plan. The shares traded as low as $5.07 in January.
PG&E in December 2017 suspended its quarterly cash dividend, while continuing to pay significant property taxes to California counties, citing uncertainty about liabilities from wildfires in October of that year that struck Northern California.
PG&E paid $798 million in dividends in 2017 and $925 million in 2016, a period in which the company did a poor job of clearing areas around its power lines of hazardous trees, according to Alsup.
Money meant for shareholders should have been spent on efforts to reduce wildfire risks in recent years, Alsup said at Tuesday's hearing.
"PG&E has started way more than its share of these fires," Alsup said.
"I want to see the people of California safe," the judge added.
Lawyers for PG&E did not contest the new terms, which the company considers more feasible than terms Alsup proposed in January.
To comply with the terms Alsup proposed in January, PG&E said it would have to remove 100 million trees. The company added that shutting power lines during high winds as Alsup proposed would not be feasible because the lines traverse rural areas to service cities and suburbs.
Idling lines could also affect the power grid in other states, PG&E said.
Alsup on Tuesday said he was still considering his proposal to require PG&E to shut down power lines during windy weather to prevent tree branches from making contact and sparking wildfires linked to power lines in the region.
Advanced Nuclear Reactors redefine nuclear energy with SMRs, diverse fuels, passive safety, digital control rooms, and flexible heat and power, pairing veteran operator expertise with cost-efficient, carbon-free electricity for a resilient grid.
Key Points
SMR-based advanced reactors with passive cooling and digital controls deliver flexible power and process heat.
✅ Veteran operators transfer proven safety culture and risk management.
✅ SMRs, passive safety, and digital controls simplify operations.
✅ Flexible output: electricity, process heat, and grid support.
Advanced reactors will break the mold of what we think next-gen nuclear power can accomplish: some will be smaller, some will use different kinds of fuel and others will do more than just make electricity. This new technology may seem like uncharted waters, but when operators, technicians and other workers start up the first reactors of the new generation, they will bring with them years of nuclear experience to run machines that have been optimized with lessons from the current fleet.
While advanced reactors are often portrayed as the future of nuclear energy, and atomic energy is heating up across markets, its our current plants that have paved the way for these exciting innovations and which will be workhorses for years to come.
Reactor Veterans Bring Their Expertise to New Designs
Many of the workers who will operate the next generation of reactors come from a nuclear background. Even though the design of an advanced reactor may be different, the experience and instincts these operators have gained from working at the current fleet will help new plants get off to a more productive start.
They have a questioning attitude; they are always exploring what could go wrong and always understanding the notion of risk management in nuclear operations, whether its the oldest design or the newest design, said Chip Pardee, the president of Terrestrial Energy USA, who is the former chief operating officer at two nuclear utilities, Exelon Corp. and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
They have respect for the technology and a bias towards conservative decision-making.
Jhansi Kandasamy, vice president of engineering at GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, agrees. She said that the presence of industry veterans will benefit the new modelslike the 300 megawatt boiling water reactor her company is developing.
From the beginning, a new reactor will have people who have touched it, worked on it, and experienced it, she said.
Theyre going to be able to tell you if something doesnt look right, because theyve lived through it.
Experience Informs New Reactor Design
Advanced reactors are designed by engineers who are fully familiar with existing plants and can use that experience to optimize the new ones, like a family building a house and wanting the kitchen just so. New reactors will be simpler to operate because of insights gained from years of operations of the current fleet, and some designs even integrate molten salt energy storage to enhance flexibility.
NuScale Power LLC, for example, has a very different design from the current fleet amid an advanced nuclear push that is reshaping development: up to 12 small reactorsinstead of one or two large reactorsmanaged from a single digital control roominstead of one full of analog switches and dials. When the company designed its control room, it brought in industry veterans who had collectively worked at more than two dozen nuclear plants.
The experts that NuScale brought in critiqued everything, even down to the shape of the symbols on the computer screens to make them easier to read for operators who sometimes need to quickly interpret lots of incoming data. The control panels for NuScales small modular reactor (SMR) present information according to its importance and automatically call up appropriate procedures for operators.
Many advanced reactors are also smaller than those currently operating, which makes their components simpler and less expensive. Kandasamy pointed out that the giant mechanical pumps in todays reactors generate a lot of heat and require a lot of supporting systems, including air conditioning in the rooms that house them.
GE Hitachis SMR design relies more on passive cooling so it needs fewer pumps, and those that remain use magnets, so they generate less heat. Fewer, smaller pumps means a smaller building and less cost.
Advanced Nuclear Will Further the Work of Current Reactors
Advanced reactors promise improved flexibility and the ability to do more kinds of work, including nuclear beyond electricity applications, to displace carbon and stabilize the climate. And they will continue nuclear energys legacy of providing reliable, carbon-free electricity, as a recent new U.S. reactor startup illustrates in practice. As new designs come on line over the next decade, we will continue to rely on operating plants which provide nearly 55 percent of the countrys carbon-free electricity.
The world will need all the carbon-free generation it can get for many years to come, as companies, states and countries aim for zero emissions by mid-century and pursue strategies like the green industrial revolution to accelerate deployment. That means it will need wind, solar, advanced reactors and current plants.
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.
