UK Market Stability Outlook remains febrile as the Bank of England, Treasury, and OBR forecasts shape fiscal policy, interest rates, gilt yields, inflation, energy bills, and pound sterling, with Oct. 31 guidance to reassure investors.
Key Points
A view of investor confidence as BOE policy, fiscal plans, and energy aid shape inflation and interest rates.
✅ Markets await Oct. 31 fiscal statement and OBR projections
✅ Energy support design drives inflation and disposable income
✅ Pound weakness adds imported inflation; rates seen up 75 bps
Bank of England Deputy Governor Dave Ramsden said financial markets are still unsettled about the outlook for the UK and that a Treasury statement due on Oct. 31 may provide some reassurance.
Speaking to the Treasury Committee in Parliament, Ramsden said officials in government and the central bank are dealing with huge economic shocks, notably the surge in energy prices that came with Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Investors are reassessing where interest rates and the fiscal stance are headed.
“Markets remain quite febrile,” Ramsden told members of Parliament in London on Monday. “Things have not settled down yet.”
He described the events following Prime Minister Liz Truss’s ill-fated fiscal statement on Sept. 23, which set out a series of tax cuts funded by borrowing that spooked investors and triggered a rout in UK assets. Ramsden said those events damaged the UK’s credibility among investors, but reversing that program and Truss’s decision to step aside have helped the nation regain confidence.
“Credibility is hard won and easily lost,” Ramsden said. “That credibility is being recovered. That has to be followed through. A return to the kind of stability around policy making and around the framing of fiscal events will be really important.”
He said the issue with the Sept. 23 statement was that “it had one side of the fiscal arithmetic in it” and that the decision to include forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility will help underpin the confidence investors have in assessing the UK budget due out next week, including potential moves to end the link between gas and electricity prices for consumers.
“What we are going to get on Oct. 31 will be very important,” Ramsden said, “as it will address measures such as the price cap on household energy bills and other fiscal choices.”
“My sense is that will take account of all the statements on both the revenue and on the spending side.”
The central bank already was getting some information from Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt’s team about the fiscal statement due. Hunt said last week he’d curtail government plans to subsidize household fuel bills in April, when a 16% decrease in energy bills is anticipated, instead of letting it run as long as planned and replace it with a more targeted program.
“To the extent possible, we will obviously have a little bit of time to take account of that before we make our decisions later next week,” Ramsden said.
With Truss stepping down in the next day and handing power to Rishi Sunak, it isn’t certain the Oct. 31 statement will go ahead as planned. Ramsden’s remarks confirm reports that Hunt is preparing to make the statement, amid a free electricity debate in the industry, even before Sunak names his team.
Any hint about what sort of package Hunt will offer on energy is crucial to the BOE’s forecasts. Without aid for energy, consumers will be exposed to high winter heating and electricity costs and to the full force of whatever happens in natural gas and electricity markets, and that will have a big impact on how much disposable income is available to households.
The energy plan, alongside the energy security bill, “will be a key element, as obviously it will have a bearing on the path for inflation, which is critical, but also how much additional support relative to what we were assuming at the time of the September MPC there will be for households at different points in the income distribution,” Ramsden added.
Investors currently expect the BOE to hike rates by 75 basis points next week.
Ramsden also said the BOE is watching the pound’s decline to assess how that changes the outlook for inflation.
“We have to take account of it,” Ramsden said. “When sterling deprreciaties that feeds through to imported inflation. It’s fallen quite significantly. The overall trend is down.”
Vogtle Unit 3 Initial Criticality marks the startup of a new U.S. nuclear reactor, initiating fission to produce heat, steam, and electricity, supporting clean energy goals, grid reliability, and carbon-free baseload power.
Key Points
Vogtle Unit 3 Initial Criticality is the first fission startup, launching power generation at a new U.S. reactor.
✅ First new U.S. reactor to reach criticality since 2016
✅ Generates carbon-free baseload power for the grid
✅ Faced cost overruns and delays during construction
For the first time in almost seven years, a new nuclear reactor has started up in the United States.
On Monday, Georgia Power announced that the Vogtle nuclear reactor Unit 3 has started a nuclear reaction inside the reactor as part of the first new reactors in decades now taking shape at the plant.
Technically, this is called “initial criticality.” It’s when the nuclear fission process starts splitting atoms and generating heat, Georgia Power said in a written announcement.
The heat generated in the nuclear reactor causes water to boil. The resulting steam spins a turbine that’s connected to a generator that creates electricity.
Vogtle’s Unit 3 reactor will be fully in service in May or June, Georgia Power said.
The last time a nuclear reactor reached the same milestone was almost seven years ago in May 2016 when the Tennessee Valley Authority started splitting atoms at the Watts Bar Unit 2 reactor in Tennessee, Scott Burnell, a spokesperson for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told CNBC.
“This is a truly exciting time as we prepare to bring online a new nuclear unit that will serve our state with clean and emission-free energy for the next 60 to 80 years,” Chris Womack, CEO of Georgia Power, said in a written statement.
Including the newly turned-on Vogtle Unit 3 reactor, there are currently 93 nuclear reactors operating in the United States and, collectively, they generate 20% of the electricity in the country, although a South Carolina plant leak recently showed how outages can sideline a unit for weeks.
Nuclear reactors, which help combat global warming and support net-zero emissions goals, generate about half of the clean, carbon-free electricity generated in the U.S.
Most of the nuclear power reactors in the United States were constructed between 1970 and 1990, but construction slowed significantly after the accident at Three Mile Island near Middletown, Pennsylvania, on March 28, 1979, even as interest in next-gen nuclear power has grown in recent years. From 1979 through 1988, 67 nuclear reactor construction projects were canceled, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
However, because nuclear energy is generated without releasing carbon dioxide emissions, which cause global warming, the increased sense of urgency in responding to climate change has given nuclear energy a chance at a renaissance as atomic energy heats up again globally.
The cost associated with building nuclear reactors is a major barrier to a potential resurgence in nuclear energy, however, even as nuclear generation costs have fallen to a ten-year low. And the new builds at Vogtle have become an epitome of that charge: The construction of the two Vogtle reactors has been plagued by cost overruns and delays.
El Salvador Geothermal Expansion boosts renewable energy with a 7 MW Berlin binary ORC plant, upgrades at Ahuachapan, and pipeline projects, strengthening clean power capacity, grid reliability, and sustainable growth in Central America.
Key Points
A national push adding binary-cycle capacity at Berlin and Ahuachapan, boosting geothermal supply and advancing sites.
✅ 7 MW Berlin binary ORC plant entering service.
✅ Ahuachapan upgrade adds 2 MW, total geothermal 204 MW.
✅ Next: Chinameca, San Miguel, San Vicente, World Bank backed.
El Salvador is set to expand its renewable energy capacity with the inauguration of the 7-MW Berlin binary geothermal power plant, slated to go online later this year. This new addition marks a significant milestone in the country’s geothermal energy development, highlighting its commitment to sustainable energy solutions. The plant, which has already been installed and is currently undergoing testing, is expected to boost the nation’s geothermal capacity, contributing to its growing renewable energy portfolio.
The Role of Geothermal Energy in El Salvador’s Energy Mix
Geothermal energy plays a pivotal role in El Salvador's energy landscape. With the combined output from the Ahuachapan and Berlin geothermal plants, geothermal energy now accounts for about 21% of the country's net electricity supply. This makes geothermal the second-largest source of energy generation in El Salvador, underscoring its importance as a reliable and sustainable energy resource alongside emerging options like advanced nuclear microreactor technologies in the broader low-carbon mix.
In addition to the Berlin plant, El Salvador has made significant improvements to its Ahuachapan geothermal power plant. Recent upgrades have increased its generation capacity by 2 MW, further enhancing the country’s geothermal energy output. Together, the Ahuachapan and Berlin plants bring the total installed geothermal capacity to 204 MW, positioning El Salvador as a regional leader in geothermal energy development.
The Berlin Binary Geothermal Plant: A Technological Milestone
The Berlin binary geothermal power plant is especially noteworthy for several reasons. It is the first geothermal power plant to be constructed in El Salvador since 2007, marking a significant step in the country's ongoing efforts to expand its renewable energy infrastructure while reinforcing attention to risk management in light of Hawaii geothermal safety concerns reported elsewhere. The plant utilizes a binary cycle geothermal system, which is known for its efficiency in extracting energy from lower temperature geothermal resources, making it an ideal solution for regions like Berlin, where geothermal resources are abundant but at lower temperatures.
The plant was built by Turboden, an Italian company specializing in organic Rankine cycle (ORC) technology. The binary cycle system operates by transferring heat from the geothermal fluid to a secondary fluid, which then drives a turbine to generate electricity. This system allows for the efficient use of geothermal resources that might otherwise be too low in temperature for traditional geothermal plants, enabling pairing with thermal storage demonstration solutions to optimize output.
Future Geothermal Developments in El Salvador
El Salvador is not stopping with the Berlin geothermal plant. The country is actively working on other geothermal projects, including those in Chinameca, San Miguel, and San Vicente. These developments are expected to add 50 MW of additional capacity in their first phase, reflecting a broader shift as countries pursue hydrogen-ready power plants to reduce emissions, with a second phase, supported by the World Bank, planned to add another 100 MW.
The Chinameca, San Miguel, and San Vicente projects represent the next wave of geothermal development in El Salvador. When completed, these plants will significantly increase the country’s geothermal capacity, further diversifying its energy mix and reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and will require ongoing grid upgrades, a task complicated elsewhere by Germany grid expansion challenges highlighted in Europe.
International Support and Collaboration
El Salvador’s geothermal development efforts are supported by various international partners, including the World Bank, which has been instrumental in financing the expansion of geothermal projects, as utilities such as SaskPower geothermal plans in Canada explore comparable pathways. This collaboration highlights the global recognition of El Salvador’s potential in geothermal energy and its efforts to position itself as a hub for geothermal energy development in Central America.
Additionally, the country’s expertise in geothermal energy, especially in binary cycle technology, has attracted international attention. El Salvador’s progress in the geothermal sector could serve as a model for other countries in the region that are looking to harness their geothermal resources to reduce energy costs and promote sustainable energy development.
The upcoming launch of the Berlin binary geothermal power plant is a testament to El Salvador’s commitment to sustainable energy. As the country continues to expand its geothermal capacity, it is positioning itself as a leader in renewable energy in the region. The binary cycle technology employed at the Berlin plant not only enhances energy efficiency but also demonstrates El Salvador’s ability to adapt and innovate within the renewable energy sector.
With the continued development of projects in Chinameca, San Miguel, and San Vicente, and ongoing international collaboration, El Salvador’s geothermal energy sector is set to play a crucial role in the country’s energy future. As global demand for clean energy grows, exemplified by U.S. solar capacity additions this year, El Salvador’s investments in geothermal energy are helping to build a more sustainable, resilient, and energy-independent future.
Ontario Hydro Crisis highlights soaring electricity rates, costly subsidies, nuclear refurbishments, and stalled renewables in Ontario. Policy missteps, weak planning, and rising natural gas emissions burden ratepayers while energy efficiency and storage remain underused.
Key Points
High power costs and subsidies from policy errors, nuclear refurbishments, stalled efficiency and renewables in Ontario.
✅ $5.6B yearly subsidy masks electricity rates and deficits
✅ Nuclear refurbishments embed rising costs for decades
✅ Efficiency, storage, and DERs stalled amid weak planning
By Mark Winfield
While the troubled Site C and Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam projects in B.C. and Newfoundland and Labrador have drawn a great deal of national attention over the past few months, Ontario has quietly been having a hydro crisis of its own.
One of the central promises in the 2018 platform of the Ontario Progressive Conservative party was to “clean up the hydro mess,” and then-PC leader Doug Ford vowed to fire Hydro One's leadership as part of that effort. There certainly is a mess, with the costs of subsidies taken from general provincial revenues to artificially lower hydro rates nearing $7 billion annually. That is a level approaching the province’s total pre-COVID-19 annual deficit. After only two years, that will also exceed total expected cost overruns of the Site C and Muskrat Falls projects, currently estimated at $12 billion ($6 billion each).
There is no doubt that Doug Ford’s government inherited a significant mess around the province’s electricity system from the previous Liberal governments of former premiers Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. But the Ford government has also demonstrated a remarkable capacity for undoing the things its predecessors had managed to get right while doubling down on their mistakes.
The Liberals did have some significant achievements. Most notably: coal-fired electricity generation, which constituted 25 per cent of the province’s electricity supply in the early 2000s, was phased out in 2014. The phaseout dramatically improved air quality in the province. There was also a significant growth in renewable energy production. From virtually zero in 2003, the province installed 4,500 MW of wind-powered generation, and 450 MW of solar photovoltaic by 2018, a total capacity more than double that of the Sir Adam Beck Generating Stations at Niagara Falls.
At the same time, public concerns over rising hydro rates flowing from a major reconstruction of the province’s electricity system from 2003 onwards became a central political issue in the province. But rather than reconsider the role of the key drivers of the continuing rate increases – namely the massively expensive and risky refurbishments of the Darlington and Bruce nuclear facilities, the Liberals adopted a financially ruinous Fair Hydro Plan. The central feature of the 2017 plan was a short-term 25 per cent reduction in hydro rates, financed by removing the provincial portion of the HST from hydro bills, and by extending the amortization period for capital projects within the system. The total cost of the plan in terms of lost revenues and financing costs has been estimated in excess of $40 billion over 29 years, with the burden largely falling on future ratepayers and taxpayers.
Decision-making around the electricity system became deeply politicized, and a secret cabinet forecast of soaring prices intensified public debate across Ontario. Legislation adopted by the Wynne government in 2016 eliminated the requirement for the development of system plans to be subject to any form of meaningful regulatory oversight or review. Instead, the system was guided through directives from the provincial cabinet. Major investments like the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments proceeded without meaningful, public, external reviews of their feasibility, costs or alternatives.
The Ford government proceeded to add more layers to these troubles. The province’s relatively comprehensive framework for energy efficiency was effectively dismantled in March, 2019, with little meaningful replacement. That was despite strong evidence that energy efficiency offered the most cost-effective strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and electricity costs.
The Ford government basically retained the Fair Hydro Plan and promised further rate reductions, later tabling legislation to lower electricity rates as well. To its credit, the government did take steps to clarify real costs of the plan. Last year, these were revealed to amount to a de facto $5.6 billion-per-year subsidy coming from general revenues, and rising. That constituted the major portion of the province’s $7.4 billion pre-COVID-19 deficit. The financial hole was deepened further through November’s financial statement, with the addition of a further $1.3 billion subsidy to commercial and industrial consumers. The numbers can only get worse as the costs of the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments become embedded more fully into electricity rates.
The government also quietly dispensed with the last public vestige of an energy planning framework, relieving itself of the requirement to produce a Long-Term Energy Plan every three years. The next plan would normally have been due next month, in February.
Even the gains from the 2014 phaseout of coal-fired electricity are at risk. Major increases are projected in emissions of greenhouse gases, smog-causing nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from natural gas-fired power plants as the plants are run to cover electricity needs during the Bruce and Darlington refurbishments over the next decade. These developments could erode as much as 40 per cent of the improvements in air quality and greenhouse gas emission gained through the coal phaseout.
The province’s activities around renewable energy, energy storage and distributed energy resources are at a standstill, with exception of a few experimental “sandbox” projects, while other jurisdictions face profound electricity-sector change and adapt. Globally, these technologies are seen as the leading edge of energy-system development and decarbonization. Ontario seems to have chosen to make itself an energy innovation wasteland instead.
The overall result is a system with little or no space for innovation that is embedding ever-higher costs while trying to disguise those costs at enormous expense to the provincial treasury and still failing to provide effective relief to low-income electricity consumers.
The decline in electricity demand associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, along with the introduction of a temporary recovery rate for electricity, gives the province an opportunity to step back and consider its next steps with the electricity system. A phaseout of the Fair Hydro Plan electricity-rate reduction and its replacement with a more cost-effective strategy of targeted relief aimed at those most heavily burdened by rising hydro rates, particularly rural and low-income consumers, as reconnection efforts for nonpayment have underscored the hardship faced by many households, would be a good place to start.
Next, the province needs to conduct a comprehensive, public review of electricity options available to it, including additional renewables – the costs of which have fallen dramatically over the past decade – distributed energy resources, hydro imports from Quebec and energy efficiency before proceeding with further nuclear refurbishments.
In the longer term, a transparent, evidence-based process for electricity system planning needs to be established – one that is subject to substantive public and regulatory oversight and review. Finally, the province needs to establish a new organization to be called Energy Efficiency Ontario to revive its efforts around energy efficiency, developing a comprehensive energy-efficiency strategy for the province, covering electricity and natural gas use, and addressing the needs of marginalized communities.
Without these kinds of steps, the province seems destined to continue to lurch from contradictory decision after contradictory decision as the economic and environmental costs of the system’s existing trajectory continue to rise.
Mark Winfield is a professor of environmental studies at York University and co-chair of the university’s Sustainable Energy Initiative.
Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6) Emissions drive rising greenhouse gas impacts in electrical switchgear, power grids, and renewables, with extreme global warming potential, long atmospheric lifetime, and leakage risks challenging climate targets and grid decarbonization.
Key Points
SF6 emissions are leaks from electrical switchgear and grids, a high-GWP gas with ~1,000-year lifetime.
✅ 23,500x CO2 global warming potential (GWP)
✅ Leaks from switchgear, breakers, gas-insulated substations
✅ Clean air and vacuum alternatives emerging for MV/HV
Sulphur hexafluoride, or SF6, is widely used in the electrical industry to prevent short circuits and accidents.
But leaks of the little-known gas in the UK and the rest of the EU in 2017 were the equivalent of putting an extra 1.3 million cars on the road.
Levels are rising as an unintended consequence of the green energy boom and the broader global energy transition worldwide.
Cheap and non-flammable, SF6 is a colourless, odourless, synthetic gas. It makes a hugely effective insulating material for medium and high-voltage electrical installations.
It is widely used across the industry, from large power stations to wind turbines to electrical sub-stations in towns and cities.
It prevents electrical accidents and fires.
However, the significant downside to using the gas is that it has the highest global warming potential of any known substance. It is 23,500 times more warming than carbon dioxide (CO2).
Just one kilogram of SF6 warms the Earth to the same extent as 24 people flying London to New York return.
It also persists in the atmosphere for a long time, warming the Earth for at least 1,000 years.
So why are we using more of this powerful warming gas?
The way we make electricity around the world is changing rapidly, with New Zealand's push to electrify in its energy system.
Where once large coal-fired power stations brought energy to millions, the drive to combat climate change and to move away from coal means they are now being replaced by mixed sources of power including wind, solar and gas.
This has resulted in many more connections to the electricity grid, and with EU electricity use could double by 2050, a rise in the number of electrical switches and circuit breakers that are needed to prevent serious accidents.
Collectively, these safety devices are called switchgear. The vast majority use SF6 gas to quench arcs and stop short circuits.
"As renewable projects are getting bigger and bigger, we have had to use it within wind turbines specifically," said Costa Pirgousis, an engineer with Scottish Power Renewables on its new East Anglia wind farm, which doesn't use SF6 in turbines.
"As we are putting in more and more turbines, we need more and more switchgear and, as a result, more SF6 is being introduced into big turbines off shore.
"It's been proven for years and we know how it works, and as a result it is very reliable and very low maintenance for us offshore."
How do we know that SF6 is increasing?
Across the entire UK network of power lines and substations, there are around one million kilograms of SF6 installed.
A study from the University of Cardiff found that across all transmission and distribution networks, the amount used was increasing by 30-40 tonnes per year.
This rise was also reflected across Europe with total emissions from the 28 member states in 2017 equivalent to 6.73 million tonnes of CO2. That's the same as the emissions from 1.3 million extra cars on the road for a year.
Researchers at the University of Bristol who monitor concentrations of warming gases in the atmosphere say they have seen significant rises in the last 20 years.
"We make measurements of SF6 in the background atmosphere," said Dr Matt Rigby, reader in atmospheric chemistry at Bristol.
"What we've seen is that the levels have increased substantially, and we've seen almost a doubling of the atmospheric concentration in the last two decades."
How does SF6 get into the atmosphere?
The most important means by which SF6 gets into the atmosphere is from leaks in the electricity industry.
Electrical company Eaton, which manufactures switchgear without SF6, says its research indicates that for the full life-cycle of the product, leaks could be as high as 15% - much higher than many other estimates.
Louis Schaeffer, electrical business manager at Eaton, said: "The newer gear has very low leak rates but the key question is do you have newer gear?
"We looked at all equipment and looked at the average of all those leak rates, and we didn't see people taking into account the filling of the gas. Plus, we looked at how you recycle it and return it and also included the catastrophic leaks."
How damaging to the climate is this gas?
Concentrations in the atmosphere are very small right now, just a fraction of the amount of CO2 in the air.
However, the global installed base of SF6 is expected to grow by 75% by 2030, as data-driven electricity demand surges worldwide.
Another concern is that SF6 is a synthetic gas and isn't absorbed or destroyed naturally. It will all have to be replaced and destroyed to limit the impact on the climate.
Developed countries are expected to report every year to the UN on how much SF6 they use, but developing countries do not face any restrictions on use.
Right now, scientists are detecting concentrations in the atmosphere that are 10 times the amount declared by countries in their reports. Scientists say this is not all coming from countries like India, China and South Korea.
One study found that the methods used to calculate emissions in richer countries "severely under-reported" emissions over the past two decades.
Why hasn't this been banned?
SF6 comes under a group of human-produced substances known as F-gases. The European Commission tried to prohibit a number of these environmentally harmful substances, including gases in refrigeration and air conditioning, back in 2014.
But they faced strong opposition from industries across Europe.
"In the end, the electrical industry lobby was too strong and we had to give in to them," said Dutch Green MEP Bas Eickhout, who was responsible for the attempt to regulate F-gases.
"The electric sector was very strong in arguing that if you want an energy transition, and you have to shift more to electricity, you will need more electric devices. And then you also will need more SF6.
"They used the argument that otherwise the energy transition would be slowed down."
What do regulator and electrical companies say about the gas?
Everyone is trying to reduce their dependence on the gas, and US control efforts suggest targeted policies can drive declines, as it is universally recognised as harmful to the climate.
In the UK, energy regulator Ofgem says it is working with utilities to try to limit leaks of the gas.
"We are using a range of tools to make sure that companies limit their use of SF6, a potent greenhouse gas, where this is in the interest of energy consumers," an Ofgem spokesperson told BBC News.
"This includes funding innovation trials and rewarding companies to research and find alternatives, setting emissions targets, rewarding companies that beat those targets, and penalising those that miss them."
Are there alternatives - and are they very expensive?
The question of alternatives to SF6 has been contentious over recent years.
For high-voltage applications, experts say there are very few solutions that have been rigorously tested.
"There is no real alternative that is proven," said Prof Manu Haddad from the school of engineering at Cardiff University.
"There are some that are being proposed now but to prove their operation over a long period of time is a risk that many companies don't want to take."
Medium voltage operations there are several tried-and-tested materials. Some in the industry say that the conservative nature of the electrical industry is the key reason that few want to change to a less harmful alternative.
"I will tell you, everyone in this industry knows you can do this; there is not a technical reason not to do it," said Louis Schaffer from Eaton.
"It's not really economic; it's more a question that change takes effort and if you don't have to, you won't do it."
Some companies are feeling the winds of change
Sitting in the North Sea some 43km from the Suffolk coast, Scottish Power Renewables has installed one of world's biggest wind farms, in line with a sustainable electric planet vision, where the turbines will be free of SF6 gas.
East Anglia One will see 102 of these towering generators erected, with the capacity to produce up to 714MW (megawatts) of power by 2020, enough to supply half a million homes.
Previously, an installation like this would have used switchgear supplied with SF6, to prevent the electrical accidents that can lead to fires.
Each turbine would normally have contained around 5kg of SF6, which, if it leaked into the atmosphere, would add the equivalent of around 117 tonnes of carbon dioxide. This is roughly the same as the annual emissions from 25 cars.
"In this case we are using a combination of clean air and vacuum technology within the turbine. It allows us to still have a very efficient, reliable, high-voltage network but to also be environmentally friendly," said Costa Pirgousis from Scottish Power Renewables.
"Once there are viable alternatives on the market, there is no reason not to use them. In this case, we've got a viable alternative and that's why we are using it."
But even for companies that are trying to limit the use of SF6, there are still limitations. At the heart of East Anglia One sits a giant offshore substation to which all 102 turbines will connect. It still uses significant quantities of the highly warming gas.
What happens next ?
The EU will review the use of SF6 next year and will examine whether alternatives are available. However, even the most optimistic experts don't think that any ban is likely to be put in place before 2025.
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.
New England oil-fired generation surges as ISO New England manages a cold snap, dual-fuel switching, and a natural gas price spike, highlighting winter reliability challenges, LNG and pipeline limits, and rising CO2 emissions.
Key Points
Reliance on oil-burning power plants during winter demand spikes when natural gas is costly or constrained.
✅ Driven by dual-fuel switching amid high natural gas prices
✅ Raises CO2 emissions despite coal retirements and renewables growth
New England is relying on oil-fired generators for the most electricity since 2018 as a frigid blast boosts demand for power and natural gas prices soar across markets.
Oil generators were producing more than 4,200 megawatts early Thursday, accounting for about a quarter of the grid’s power supply, according to ISO New England. That was the most since Jan. 6, 2018, when oil plants produced as much as 6.4 gigawatts, or 32% of the grid’s output, said Wood Mackenzie analyst Margaret Cashman.
Oil is typically used only when demand spikes, because of higher costs and emissions concerns. Consumption has been consistently high over the past three weeks as some generators switch from gas, which has surged in price in recent months. New England generators are producing power from oil at an average rate of almost 1.8 gigawatts so far this month, the highest for January in at least five years.
Oil’s share declined to 16% Friday morning ahead of an expected snowstorm, which was “a surprise,” Cashman said.
“It makes me wonder if some of those generators are aiming to reserve their fuel for this weekend,” she said.
During the recent cold snap, more than a tenth of the electricity generated in New England has been produced by power plants that haven’t happened for at least 15 years.
Burning oil for electricity was standard practice throughout the region for decades. It was once our most common fuel for power and as recently as 2000, fully 19% of the six-state region’s electricity came from burning oil, according to ISO-New England, more than any other source except nuclear power at the time.
Since then, however, natural gas has gotten so cheap that most oil-fired plants have been shut or converted to burn gas, to the point that just 1% of New England’s electricity came from oil in 2018, whereas about half our power came from natural gas generation regionally during that period. This is good because natural gas produces less pollution, both particulates and greenhouse gasses, although exactly how much less is a matter of debate.
But as you probably know, there’s a problem: Natural gas is also used for heating, which gets first dibs. Prolonged cold snaps require so much gas to keep us warm, a challenge echoed in Ontario’s electricity system as supply tightens, that there might not be enough for power plants – at least, not at prices they’re willing to pay.
After we came close to rolling brownouts during the polar vortex in the 2017-18 winter because gas-fired power plants cut back so much, ISO-NE, which has oversight of the power grid, established “winter reliability” rules. The most important change was to pay power plants to become dual-fuel, meaning they can switch quickly between natural gas and oil, and to stockpile oil for winter cold snaps.
We’re seeing that practice in action right now, as many dual-fuel plants have switched away from gas to oil, just as was intended.
That switch is part of the reason EPA says the region’s carbon emissions have gone up in the pandemic, from 22 million tons of CO2 in 2019 to 24 million tons in 2021. That reverses a long trend caused partly by closing of coal plants and partly by growing solar and offshore wind capacity: New England power generation produced 36 million tons of CO2 a decade ago.
So if we admit that a return to oil burning is bad, and it is, what can we do in future winters? There are many possibilities, including tapping more clean imports such as Canadian hydropower to diversify supply.
The most obvious solution is to import more natural gas, especially from fracked fields in New York state and Pennsylvania. But efforts to build pipelines to do that have been shot down a couple of times and seem unlikely to go forward and importing more gas via ocean tanker in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) is also an option, but hits limits in terms of port facilities.
Aside from NIMBY concerns, the problem with building pipelines or ports to import more gas is that pipelines and ports are very expensive. Once they’re built they create a financial incentive to keep using natural gas for decades to justify the expense, similar to moves such as Ontario’s new gas plants that lock in generation. That makes it much harder for New England to decarbonize and potentially leaves ratepayers on the hook for a boatload of stranded costs.
