Prime Minister Stephen Harper committed Canada to become an energy superpower at the 2006 G8 Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. A better vision for Canada would be to become a sustainable, environmentally sound energy superpower.
In any event, a vision without a plan is but a dream. It's not about walking away from fossil fuels and closing down coal plants. It's about learning to work with what nature has given us, without using the environment as the dump for waste products.
Canada has an opportunity to provide global leadership in addressing the collision between energy and the environment, the dominant issue facing our planet in this century. We lack only one ingredient - the national will. In the past, our big achievements have been conceived and led by champions.
The railway across Canada, the construction of our airport system in the midst of the depression, the massive James Bay generating facility, the unlocking of the deeply buried oil sands - in each case, there was a champion who provided the leadership and who created a sense of public purpose. Where is Canada's champion to lead our energy vision? Stephen Harper came very close in 2006, comparing the oil sands to building the pyramids or the Great Wall of China. We have not seen many environmental advances yet, mainly just studies and then more studies.
We know the pathway. More than 100 energy experts, under the auspices of the Canadian Academy of Engineering, have proposed that Canada undertake the following three nation-building projects.
Gasification of coal and biomass (to produce hydrogen, electricity).
Greenhouse gas management (carbon dioxide capture, followed by transportation, long-term storage and/or use).
A National Electrical Highway (Upgrades to electrical infrastructure with improved local access for wind and other renewable energy sources).
Coal gasification is not combustion with the accompanying release of massive emissions of carbon dioxide at low concentrations. New coal/biomass gasification technology produces hydrogen, electricity, and a concentrated stream of carbon dioxide that can be recovered and stored underground.
The oil sands, a major contributor to Canada's future wealth, are not usable until the bitumen is upgraded by the addition of hydrogen. The existing practice of producing the needed hydrogen from natural gas (a low carbon footprint fuel) is not a viable long-term solution. Coal and oil sands need to be seen as an integrated resource.
Greenhouse gas capture, transportation and storage are natural pathways for Canada. We are already injecting carbon dioxide into conventional oil reservoirs to promote enhanced oil recovery. We have almost unlimited future storage capacity in deep underground saline aquifers. The carbon dioxide is not stored as a high-pressure gas, in danger of sudden release. It is stored as a liquid in the pore space, just like the original petroleum.
Electricity is a provincial responsibility. Each province has developed its own electricity sector in accordance with provincial energy policies and prevailing economic forces. This has typically resulted in stronger north-south than east-west connections and in many provinces has left a legacy of significant use of fossil fuels for the generation of electricity.
Canada has renewable energy sources such as water and wind, in addition to uranium for nuclear reactors, that can provide electric power with very low greenhouse gas emissions over their life cycle. Significantly strengthened and new east-west ties to form a robust national power grid would encourage interprovincial trade in electricity, provide improved grid access by renewable sources and enhance reliability of supply.
There is a made-in-Canada model for the appropriate type of project management. In the 1970s, former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed, faced with minimal interest by the international oil companies in the deeply buried oil sands, established a cross-sectoral management board to spearhead the required field demonstration projects.
His initial $100-million "signal" to industry led to a $1-billion to $3-billion (in today's dollars) joint government/industry program. The concept of a cross-sectoral management board to meet our current challenges has been proposed by both the recent Canadian Academy of Engineering Energy Pathways report, and NRCan's commissioned Powerful Connections - also known as the Bruneau report.
So why are we not running our energy system this way now? The technologies are largely new and have not been tested on a full commercial scale. Canada has unique coal and biomass feedstocks. Processes that have been demonstrated in other countries need to be validated and "tuned up" for use in Canada.
The opportunity is huge, the plan has been strongly and widely endorsed, and an appropriate management structure has been proposed. The prize is unparalleled economic and social wealth in Canada over this century. This should be our moon shot. Where is the national will? Where is our champion?
Toronto Electricity Demand Growth underscores IESO projections of rising peak load by 2050, driven by population growth, electrification, new housing density, and tech economy, requiring grid modernization, transmission upgrades, demand response, and local renewable energy.
Key Points
It refers to the projected near-doubling of Toronto's peak load by 2050, driven by electrification and urban growth.
✅ IESO projects peak demand nearly doubling by 2050
Toronto faces a significant challenge in meeting the growing electricity needs of its expanding population and ambitious development plans. According to a new report from Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), Toronto's peak electricity demand is expected to nearly double by 2050. This highlights the need for proactive steps to secure adequate electricity supply amidst the city's ongoing economic and population growth.
Key Factors Driving Demand
Several factors are contributing to the projected increase in electricity demand:
Population Growth: Toronto is one of the fastest-growing cities in North America, and this trend is expected to continue. More residents mean more need for housing, businesses, and other electricity-consuming infrastructure.
New Homes and Density: The city's housing strategy calls for 285,000 new homes within the next decade, including significant densification in existing neighbourhoods. High-rise buildings in urban centers are generally more energy-intensive than low-rise residential developments.
Economic Development: Toronto's robust economy, a hub for tech and innovation, attracts new businesses, including energy-intensive AI data centers that fuel further demand for electricity.
Electrification: The push to reduce carbon emissions is driving the electrification of transportation and home heating, further increasing pressure on Toronto's electricity grid.
Planning for the Future
Ontario and the City of Toronto recognize the urgency to secure stable and reliable electricity supplies to support continued growth and prosperity without sacrificing affordability, drawing lessons from British Columbia's clean energy shift to inform local approaches. Officials are collaborating to develop a long-term plan that focuses on:
Energy Efficiency: Efforts aim to reduce wasteful electricity usage through upgrades to existing buildings, promoting energy-efficient appliances, and implementing smart grid technologies. These will play a crucial role in curbing overall demand.
New Infrastructure: Significant investments in building new electricity generation, transmission lines, and substations, as well as regional macrogrids to enhance reliability, will be necessary to meet the projected demands of Toronto's future.
Demand Management: Programs incentivizing energy conservation during peak hours will help to avoid strain on the grid and reduce the need to build expensive power plants only used at peak demand times.
Challenges Ahead
The path ahead isn't without its hurdles. Building new power infrastructure in a dense urban environment like Toronto can be time-consuming, expensive, and sometimes disruptive, especially as grids face harsh weather risks that complicate construction and operations. Residents and businesses might worry about potential rate increases required to fund these necessary investments.
Opportunity for Innovation
The IESO and the city view the situation as an opportunity to embrace innovative solutions. Exploring renewable energy sources within and near the city, developing local energy storage systems, and promoting distributed energy generation such as rooftop solar, where power is created near the point of use, are all vital strategies for meeting needs in a sustainable way.
Toronto's electricity future depends heavily on proactive planning and investment in modernizing its power infrastructure. The decisions made now will determine whether the city can support economic growth, address climate goals and a net-zero grid by 2050 ambition, and ensure that lights stay on for all Torontonians as the city continues to expand.
Maryland Renewable Energy Violations highlight RPS compliance gaps as facilities selling renewable energy certificates, including waste-to-energy, biomass, and paper mills, face emissions and permit issues, prompting PSC and Attorney General scrutiny of environmental standards.
Key Points
Alleged RPS noncompliance by REC-eligible plants, prompting PSC review and potential decertification under Maryland law.
✅ Complaint targets waste-to-energy, biomass plants, and paper mills
✅ Facilities risk loss of REC certification for environmental violations
✅ PSC may investigate nonreporting; AG reviewing evidence
Many facilities that supply Maryland with renewable energy have exceeded pollution limits or otherwise broken environmental rules, violating a state law, according to a complaint sent by environmental groups to state energy and law enforcement officials.
Maryland law says that any company that contributes to a state renewable energy goal — half the state’s energy portfolio must come from renewable sources by 2030 — must “substantially comply” with rules on air and water quality and waste management. The complaint says more than two dozen power generators, including paper mills and trash incinerators, have records of formal or informal enforcement actions by environmental authorities.
For years, environmental groups have criticized Maryland policy that counts power plants that produce planet-warming carbon dioxide and health-threatening pollution as “renewable” energy generation, and similar tensions have emerged in California’s reliance on fossil fuels despite ambitious targets, but lawmakers concerned about protecting industrial jobs have resisted reforms. The renewable label qualifies the companies for subsidies drawn from energy bills across the state.
In a complaint filed this week, the groups asked the attorney general and Public Service Commission to step in.
“We’re subsidizing companies to produce dirty energy, but we’re also using ratepayer money to support companies that in many instances are paying environmental fines or just flouting the law,” said Timothy Whitehouse, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “There’s no one to hold them to account in Maryland.”
A spokeswoman for Attorney General Brian Frosh said his office would review the complaint, which was signed by Whitehouse and Mike Ewall, executive director of the Energy Justice Network.
Public Service Commission officials said the facilities must notify them if found out of compliance with environmental rules, while at the federal level FERC action on aggregated DERs is shaping market participation, and the commission can then revoke certification under the state renewable energy program. In a statement, commission officials said they would launch an investigation if any facility had failed to notify them of any environmental violations, and encouraged anyone with evidence of such a transgression to file a complaint.
Companies named in the document accused the groups of painting an inaccurate picture.
“This complaint is based on misleading arguments designed to halt waste-to-energy practices that have clear environmental benefits recognized by the global scientific community,” said Jim Connolly, vice president of environment, health and safety for Wheelabrator, which owns a Baltimore trash incinerator.
Maryland launched its renewable energy program in 2004, diversifying the state’s energy portfolio with more environmentally friendly sources of power, even as regional debates over a Maine-Québec transmission line highlight cross-border impacts. Under the program, separate from the electricity they generate and sell to the grid, renewable power facilities can sell what are known as renewable energy certificates. Utilities such as Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. are required to buy a growing number of the certificates each year, essentially subsidizing the renewable energy facilities with money from ratepayer bills.
A dozen types of power generation qualify to sell the certificates: Solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric plants, as well as “biomass” facilities that burn wood and other organic matter, waste-to-energy plants that burn household trash and paper mills that burn a byproduct known as black liquor.
The complaint focuses on waste incinerators, biomass plants and paper mills, all of which environmental groups have cast as counter to the renewable energy program’s environmental goals, even as ACORE criticized a coal and nuclear subsidy proposal in federal proceedings.
“By subsidizing these corporations, Maryland is diverting the hard-earned income of Maryland ratepayers to wealthy corporations with poor environmental compliance records and undermining the state’s transition to clean renewable energy,” Whitehouse and Ewall wrote.
For example, they note that the Wheelabrator plant in Southwest Baltimore has been fined for exceeding mercury limits in the past. That occurred in 2011, when the plant settled with state regulators for violations in 2010 and 2009.
Connolly said there is “no question” the facility complies with Maryland’s renewable energy law.
Incinerators in Montgomery County and in Fairfax County, Virginia, that are owned by Covanta and sell the energy certificates in Maryland have been cited for accidental fires inside both facilities. The Maryland incinerator violated emissions rules in 2014, the same year that New Jersey forbade the Virginia facility from selling energy certificates into that state’s renewable energy program over concerns it wasn’t following ash testing regulations.
James Regan, a spokesman for Covanta, said both facilities “have excellent compliance records and they operate well below their permitted limits.” He said the Virginia facility is complying with ash testing requirements, and that both facilities emit far lower levels of pollutants such as particulate matter than vehicles do.
“It’s clear to us there’s a lot of misleading and wrong information in this document," Regan said.
The Environmental Protection Agency endorsed waste-to-energy facilities under former President Barack Obama because, while burning household trash emits carbon dioxide, scientists said that still had a smaller impact on global warming than sending trash to landfills, even as industry groups have backed the EPA in a legal challenge to the ACE rule as regulatory approaches shifted.
Environmentalists and community groups say the facilities still are harmful because they emit high levels of pollutants such as mercury, nitrogen oxides and lead. The concerns prompted Baltimore City Council to pass an ordinance in February that tightened emissions limits on the Wheelabrator facility, even as the new EPA pollution limits for coal and gas plants are being proposed, so dramatically that the company said it would no longer be able to operate once the rules go into effect in 2022.
The complaint does not mention the century-old Luke paper mill in Western Maryland that long faced criticism for its participation in the renewable energy program, but which owner Verso Co. closed this year.
It does say several of paper company WestRock’s mills in North Carolina and Virginia have faced both formal and informal EPA enforcement actions for violation of the Clean Water Act, including evolving EPA wastewater limits for power plants and other facilities, and the Clean Air Act. A WestRock spokesperson could not be reached for comment.
The complaint also says a large biomass facility in South Boston, Virginia, owned by the Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative has a record of noncompliance with the Clean Air Act over three years.
John Rainey, the plant’s operations director, said it “experienced some small exceedances to its permit limits,” but that it addressed the issues with Virginia environmental officials and has installed new technology.
All those plants have sold credits in Maryland.
Whitehouse said the environmental groups’ goal is to clean up Maryland’s renewable energy program. They did not file a lawsuit because he said there was no clear cause of action to take the state to court, but said he hopes the complaint nonetheless spurs action.
“It’s not acceptable in a clean energy program that we’re subsidizing some of the most dirty sources of energy,” he said. “Those sources aren’t even in compliance with the law, and no one seems to care.”
EPA Power Plant Emissions Rule proposes strict greenhouse gas limits for coal and gas units, leveraging carbon capture (CCS) under the Clean Air Act to cut CO2 and accelerate decarbonization of the U.S. grid.
Key Points
A proposed EPA rule setting CO2 limits for coal and gas plants, using CCS to cut power-sector greenhouse gases.
✅ Applies to existing and new coal and large gas units
✅ Targets near-zero CO2 by 2038 via CCS or retirement
✅ Cites grid, health, and climate benefits; faces legal challenges
The Biden administration has proposed new limits on greenhouse gas emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants, its most ambitious effort yet to roll back planet-warming pollution from the nation’s second-largest contributor to climate change.
A rule announced by the Environmental Protection Agency could force power plants to capture smokestack emissions using a technology that has long been promised but is not used widely in the United States, and arrives amid changes stemming from the NEPA rewrite that affect project reviews.
“This administration is committed to meeting the urgency of the climate crisis and taking the necessary actions required,″ said EPA Administrator Michael Regan.
The plan would not only “improve air quality nationwide, but it will bring substantial health benefits to communities all across the country, especially our front-line communities ... that have unjustly borne the burden of pollution for decades,” Regan said in a speech at the University of Maryland.
President Joe Biden, whose climate agenda includes a clean electricity standard as a key pillar, called the plan “a major step forward in the climate crisis and protecting public health.”
If finalized, the proposed regulation would mark the first time the federal government has restricted carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, following a Trump-era replacement of Obama’s power plant overhaul, which generate about 25% of U.S. greenhouse gas pollution, second only to the transportation sector. The rule also would apply to future electric plants and would avoid up to 617 million metric tons of carbon dioxide through 2042, equivalent to annual emissions of 137 million passenger vehicles, the EPA said.
Almost all coal plants — along with large, frequently used gas-fired plants — would have to cut or capture nearly all their carbon dioxide emissions by 2038, the EPA said, a timeline that echoed concerns raised during proposed electricity pricing changes in the prior administration. Plants that cannot meet the new standards would be forced to retire.
The plan is likely to be challenged by industry groups and Republican-leaning states, much like litigation over the Affordable Clean Energy rule unfolded in recent years. They have accused the Democratic administration of overreach on environmental regulations and warn of a pending reliability crisis for the electric grid. The power plant rule is one of at least a half-dozen EPA rules limiting power plant emissions and wastewater treatment rules.
“It’s truly an onslaught” of government regulation “designed to shut down the coal fleet prematurely,″ said Rich Nolan, president and CEO of the National Mining Association.
Regan denied that the power plant rule was aimed at shutting down the coal sector, but acknowledged — even after the end to the 'war on coal' rhetoric — “We will see some coal retirements.”
Turkey Point Subsequent License Renewal seeks NRC approval for FP&L to extend Units 3 and 4, three-loop pressurized water reactors near Homestead, Miami; public review, docketing, and an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearing.
Key Points
The NRC is reviewing FP&L's request to extend Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 operating licenses by 20 years.
✅ NRC will docket if application is complete
✅ Public review and opportunity for adjudicatory hearing
✅ Units commissioned in 1972 and 1973, near Miami
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Thursday that it had made available the first-ever "subsequent license renewal application," amid milestones at nuclear power projects worldwide, which came from Florida Power and Light and applies to the company's Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station's Units 3 and 4.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently made available for public review the first-ever subsequent license renewal application, which Florida Power & Light Company submitted on Jan. 1.
In the application, FP&L requests an additional 20 years for the operating licenses of Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4, three-loop, pressurized water reactors located in Homestead, Florida, where the Florida PSC recently approved a municipal solid waste energy purchase, approximately 40 miles south of Miami.
The NRC approved the initial license renewal in June 2002, as new reactors at Georgia's Vogtle plant continue to take shape nationwide. Unit 3 is currently licensed to operate through July 19, 2032. Unit 4 is licensed to operate through April 10, 2033.
#google#
NRC staff is currently reviewing the application, while a new U.S. reactor has recently started up, underscoring broader industry momentum. If the staff determines the application is complete, they will docket it and publish a notice of opportunity to request an adjudicatory hearing before the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
The first-ever subsequent license renewal application, submitted by Florida Power & Light Company asks for an additional 20 years for the already-renewed operating licenses of Turkey Point, even as India moves to revive its nuclear program internationally, which are currently set to expire in July of 2032 and April of 2033. The two thee-loop, pressurized water reactors, located about 40 miles south of Miami, were commissioned in July 1972 and April 1973.
If the application is determined to be complete, the staff will docket it and publish a notice of opportunity to request an adjudicatory hearing before the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the agency said.
The application is available for public review on the NRC website. Copies of the application will be available at the Homestead Branch Library in Homestead, the Naraja Branch Library in Homestead and the South Dade Regional Library in Miami.
California Electricity Rate Overhaul proposes a fixed fee and lower per-kWh rates to boost electrification, renewables, and grid reliability, while CPUC weighs impacts on conservation, low-income customers, and time-of-use pricing across the state.
Key Points
A proposal to add fixed fees and cut per-kWh prices to drive electrification, support renewables, and balance grid costs.
✅ Fixed monthly fee plus lower volumetric per-kWh charges
✅ Aims to accelerate EVs, heat pumps, and building electrification
✅ CPUC review weighs equity, conservation, and grid reliability
California is contemplating a significant overhaul to its electricity rate structure that could bring major changes to electric bills statewide, a move that has ignited debate among environmentalists and politicians alike. The proposed modifications, spearheaded by the California Energy Commission (CEC), would introduce a fixed fee on electric bills and lower the rate per kilowatt-hour (kWh) used.
Motivations for the Change
Proponents of the plan argue that it would incentivize Californians to transition to electric appliances and vehicles, a critical aspect of the state's ambitious climate goals. They reason that a lower per-unit cost would make electricity a more attractive option for applications like home heating and transportation, which are currently dominated by natural gas and gasoline. Additionally, they believe the plan would spur investment in renewable energy sources and distributed generation, ultimately leading to a cleaner electricity grid.
California has some of the most ambitious climate goals in the country, aiming to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The transportation sector is the state's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and electrification is considered a key strategy for reducing emissions. A 2021 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found that electrifying all California vehicles and buildings could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% compared to 2020 levels.
Concerns and Potential Impacts
Opponents of the proposal, including some consumer rights groups, express apprehensions that it would discourage conservation efforts. They argue that with a lower per-kWh cost, Californians would have less motivation to reduce their electricity consumption. Additionally, they raise concerns that the income-based fixed charges could disproportionately burden low-income households, who may struggle to afford the base charge regardless of their overall electricity consumption.
A recent study by the CEC suggests that the impact on most Californians would be negligible, even as regulators face calls for action over soaring bills from ratepayers across the state. The report predicts that the average household's electricity bill would change by less than $5 per month under the proposed system. However, some critics argue that this study may not fully account for the potential behavioral changes that could result from the new rate structure.
Similar Initiatives and National Implications
California is not the only state exploring changes to its electricity rates to promote clean energy. Hawaii and New York have also implemented similar programs to encourage consumers to use electricity during off-peak hours. These time-varying rates, also known as time-of-use rates, can help reduce strain on the electricity grid during peak demand periods.
The California proposal has garnered national attention as other states grapple with similar challenges in balancing clean energy goals with affordability concerns amid soaring electricity prices in California and beyond. The outcome of this debate could have significant implications for the broader effort to decarbonize the U.S. power sector.
The Road Ahead
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is reviewing the proposal and anticipates making a decision later this year, with a potential income-based flat-fee structure under consideration. The CPUC will likely consider the plan's potential benefits and drawbacks, including its impact on greenhouse gas emissions, electricity costs for consumers, and the overall reliability of the grid, even as some lawmakers seek to overturn income-based charges in the legislature.
The decision on California's electricity rates is merely one piece of the puzzle in the fight against climate change. However, it is a significant one, with the potential to shape the state's energy landscape for years to come, including the future of residential rooftop solar markets and investments.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
