Nine more state of the art wind turbines are now feeding electricity to the SaskPower grid and supplying an additional 5.9 megawatts of GreenPower to Saskatchewan consumers. Premier Lorne Calvert helped celebrate the completion of the Cypress Wind Power Facility.
"Saskatchewan is now clearly a leader in Canada in terms of wind and other alternative energy projects. Building on the success of the Cypress Wind Power Facility, we will continue to develop innovative technologies right here in Saskatchewan to meet our energy needs in the safest, most reliable and environmentally friendly ways," said Premier Lorne Calvert.
"Along with the environmental benefits, harnessing the wind has already brought far-reaching economic benefits to the province, with more than one-third of the work conducted on the Cypress project having a Saskatchewan component. That translates to approximately a $4.1 million financial injection into the provincial economy," Calvert added.
The Cypress Wind Turbine Facility is located approximately 12 kilometres southwest of Gull Lake. The nine turbines, powered only by south-west Saskatchewan's well-known wind, now gives Saskatchewan a second wind power facility and makes the province the third largest wind power producer in Canada.
Combined with the electricity being purchased from the SunBridge project, SaskPower now has 17 megawatts of green power - enough to serve about 7,000 Saskatchewan homes.
GreenPower is currently available to all Saskatchewan customers, from large industrial users to small businesses and residential customers. Long-term commitments by the Government of Saskatchewan, the Government of Canada and SaskPower, along with major customers such as SaskEnergy and the University of Regina, have supported these wind power projects.
On November 29, Peter Prebble, Legislative Secretary to the Premier for Energy Conservation will be hosting an event in Gull Lake with the people of the Gull Lake and Carmichael areas to celebrate the completion of the facility and to thank them for their support of the project.
Texas Heat Pump Electrification replaces natural gas furnaces with electric heating across ERCOT, cutting carbon emissions, lowering utility bills, shifting summer peaks to winter, and aligning higher loads with strong seasonal wind power generation.
Key Points
Statewide shift from gas furnaces to heat pumps in Texas, reducing emissions and bills while moving grid peak to winter.
✅ Up to $452 annual utility savings per household
✅ CO2 cuts up to 13.8 million metric tons in scenarios
What would happen if you converted all the single-family homes in Texas from natural gas to electric heating?
According to a paper from Pecan Street, an Austin-based energy research organization, the transition would reduce climate-warming pollution, save Texas households up to $452 annually on their utility bills, and flip the state from a summer-peaking to a winter-peaking system. And that winter peak would be “nothing the grid couldn’t evolve to handle,” according to co-author Joshua Rhodes, a view echoed by analyses outlining Texas grid reliability improvements statewide today.
The report stems from the reality that buildings must be part of any comprehensive climate action plan.
“If we do want to decarbonize, eventually we do have to move into that space. It may not be the lowest-hanging fruit, but eventually we will have to get there,” said Rhodes.
Rhodes is a founding partner of the consultancy IdeaSmiths and an analyst at Vibrant Clean Energy. Pecan Street commissioned the study, which is distilled from a larger original analysis by IdeaSmiths, at the request of the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund.
In an interview, Rhodes said, “The goal and motivation were to put bounding on some of the claims that have been made about electrification: that if we electrify a lot of different end uses or sectors of the economy...power demand of the grid would double.”
Rhodes and co-author Philip R. White used an analysis tool from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory called ResStock to determine the impact of replacing natural-gas furnaces with electric heat pumps in homes across the ERCOT service territory, which encompasses 90 percent of Texas’ electricity load.
Rhodes and White ran 80,000 simulations in order to determine how heat pumps would perform in Texas homes and how the pumps would impact the ERCOT grid.
The researchers modeled the use of “standard efficiency” (ducted, SEER 14, 8.2 HSPF air-source heat pump) and “superior efficiency” (ductless, SEER 29.3, 14 HSPF mini-split heat pump) heat pump models against two weather data sets — a typical meteorological year, and 2011, which had extreme weather in both the winter and summer and highlighted blackout risks during severe heat for many regions.
Emissions were calculated using Texas’ power sector data from 2017. For energy cost calculations, IdeaSmiths used 10.93 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity and 8.4 cents per therm for natural gas.
Nothing the grid can't handle Rhodes and White modeled six scenarios. All the scenarios resulted in annual household utility bill savings — including the two in which annual electricity demand increased — ranging from $57.82 for the standard efficiency heat pump and typical meteorological year to $451.90 for the high-efficiency heat pump and 2011 extreme weather year.
“For the average home, it was cheaper to switch. It made economic sense today to switch to a relatively high-efficiency heat pump,” said Rhodes. “Electricity bills would go up, but gas bills can go down.”
All the scenarios found carbon savings too, with CO2 reductions ranging from 2.6 million metric tons with a standard efficiency heat pump and typical meteorological year to 13.8 million metric tons with the high-efficiency heat pump in 2011-year weather.
Peak electricity demand in Texas would shift from summer to winter. Because heat pumps provide both high-efficiency space heating and cooling, in the scenario with “superior efficiency” heat pumps, the summer peak drops by nearly 24 percent to 54 gigawatts compared to ERCOT’s 71-gigawatt 2016 summer peak, even as recurring strains on the Texas power grid during extreme conditions persist.
The winter peak would increase compared to ERCOT’s 66-gigawatt 2018 winter peak, up by 22.73 percent to 81 gigawatts with standard efficiency heat pumps and up by 10.6 percent to 73 gigawatts with high-efficiency heat pumps.
“The grid could evolve to handle this. This is not a wholesale rethinking of how the grid would have to operate,” said Rhodes.
He added, “There would be some operational changes if we went to a winter-peaking grid. There would be implications for when power plants and transmission lines schedule their downtime for maintenance. But this is not beyond the realm of reality.”
And because Texas’ wind power generation is higher in winter, a winter peak would better match the expected higher load from all-electric heating to the availability of zero-carbon electricity.
A conservative estimate The study presented what are likely conservative estimates of the potential for heat pumps to reduce carbon pollution and lower peak electricity demand, especially when paired with efficiency and demand response strategies that can flatten demand.
Electric heat pumps will become cleaner as more zero-carbon wind and solar power are added to the ERCOT grid, as utilities such as Tucson Electric Power phase out coal. By the end of 2018, 30 percent of the energy used on the ERCOT grid was from carbon-free sources.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, three in five Texas households already use electricity as their primary source of heat, much of it electric-resistance heating. Rhodes and White did not model the energy use and peak demand impacts of replacing that electric-resistance heating with much more energy efficient heat pumps.
“Most of the electric-resistance heating in Texas is located in the very far south, where they don’t have much heating at all,” Rhodes said. “You would see savings in terms of the bills there because these heat pumps definitely operate more efficiently than electric-resistance heating for most of the time.”
Rhodes and White also highlighted areas for future research. For one, their study did not factor in the upfront cost to homeowners of installing heat pumps.
“More study is needed,” they write in the Pecan Street paper, “to determine the feasibility of various ‘replacement’ scenarios and how and to what degree the upgrade costs would be shared by others.”
Research from the Rocky Mountain Institute has found that electrification of both space and water heating is cheaper for homeowners over the life of the appliances in most new construction, when transitioning from propane or heating oil, when a gas furnace and air conditioner are replaced at the same time, and when rooftop solar is coupled with electrification, aligning with broader utility trends toward electrification.
More work is also needed to assess the best way to jump-start the market for high-efficiency all-electric heating. Rhodes believes getting installers on board is key.
“Whenever a homeowner’s making a decision, if their system goes out, they lean heavily on what the HVAC company suggests or tells them because the average homeowner doesn’t know much about their systems,” he said.
More work is also needed to assess the best way to jump-start the market for high-efficiency all-electric heating, and how utility strategies such as smart home network programs affect adoption too. Rhodes believes getting installers on board is key.
Trump NEPA Overhaul streamlines environmental reviews, tightening 'reasonably foreseeable' effects, curbing cumulative impacts, codifying CEQ greenhouse gas guidance, expediting permits for pipelines, highways, and wind projects with two-year EIS limits and one lead agency.
✅ Limits cumulative and indirect impacts; emphasizes foreseeable effects
✅ Caps EIS at two years; one-year environmental assessments
✅ One lead agency; narrower NEPA triggers for low federal funding
President Trump has announced plans for overhauling rules surrounding the nation’s bedrock environmental law, and administration officials refuted claims they were downplaying greenhouse gas emissions, as the administration also pursues replacement power plant rules in related areas.
The president, during remarks at the White House with supporters and Cabinet officials, said he wanted to fix the nation’s “regulatory nightmare” through new guidelines for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act.
“America is a nation of builders,” he said. But it takes too long to get a permit, and that’s “big government at its absolute worst.”
The president said, “We’re maintaining America’s world-class standards of environmental protection.” He added, “We’re going to have very strong regulation, but it’s going to go very quickly.”
NEPA says the federal government must consider alternatives to major projects like oil pipelines, highways and bridges that could inflict environmental harm. The law also gives communities input.
The Council on Environmental Quality has not updated the implementing rules in decades, and both energy companies and environmentalists want them reworked, even as some industry groups warned against rushing electricity pricing changes under related policy debates.
But they patently disagree on how to change the rules.
A central fight surrounds whether the government considers climate change concerns when analyzing a project.
Environmentalists want agencies to look more at “cumulative” or “indirect” impacts of projects. The Trump plan shuts the door on that.
“Analysis of cumulative effects is not required,” the plan states, adding that CEQ “proposes to make amendments to simplify the definition of effects by consolidating the definition into a single paragraph.”
CEQ Chairwoman Mary Neumayr told reporters during a conference call that definitions in the current rules were the “subject of confusion.”
The proposed changes, she said, do in fact eliminate the terms “cumulative” and “indirect,” in favor of more simplified language.
Effects must be “reasonably foreseeable” and require a “reasonably close causal relationship” to the proposed action, she added. “It does not exclude considerations of greenhouse gas emissions,” she said, pointing to parallel EPA proposals for new pollution limits on coal and gas power plants as context.
Last summer, CEQ issued proposed guidance on greenhouse gas reviews in project permitting. The nonbinding document gave agencies broad authority when considering emissions (Greenwire, June 21, 2019).
Environmentalists scoffed and said the proposed guidance failed to incorporate the latest climate science and look at how projects could be more resilient in the face of severe weather and sea-level rise.
The proposed NEPA rules released today include provisions to codify the proposed guidance, which has also been years in the making.
Other provisions
Senior administration officials sought to downplay the effect of the proposed NEPA rules by noting the underlying statute will remain the same.
“If it required NEPA yesterday, it will require NEPA under the new proposal,” an official said when asked how the changes might apply to pipelines like Keystone XL.
And yet the proposed changes could alter the “threshold consideration” that triggers NEPA review. The proposal would exclude projects with minimal federal funding or “participation.”
The Trump plan also proposes restricting an environmental impact statement to two years and an environmental assessment to one.
Neumayr said the average EIS takes 4 ½ years and in some cases longer. Democrats have disputed those timelines. Further, just 1% of all federal actions require an EIS, they argue.
The proposal would also require one agency to take the lead on permitting and require agency officials to “timely resolve disputes that may result in delays.”
In general, the plan calls for environmental documents to be “concise” and “serve their purpose of informing decision makers.”
Both Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, whose agency moved to rewrite coal power plant wastewater limits in separate actions, were at the White House for the announcement.
Reaction
An onslaught of critics have said changes to NEPA rules could be the administration’s most far-reaching environmental rollback, and state attorneys general have mounted a legal challenge to related energy actions as well.
The League of Conservation Voters declared the administration was again trying to “sell out the health and well-being of our children and families to corporate polluters.”
On Capitol Hill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said during a news conference the administration would “no longer enforce NEPA.”
“This means more polluters will be right there, next to the water supply of our children,” she said. “That’s a public health issue. Their denial of climate, they are going to not use the climate issue as anything to do with environmental decisionmaking.”
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) echoed the sentiment, saying he didn’t need any more proof that the fossil fuel industry had hardwired the Trump administration “but we got it anyway.”
Energy companies, including firms focused on renewable energy development, are welcoming the “clarity” of the proposed NEPA rules, even as debates continue over a clean electricity standard in federal climate policy.
“The lack of clarity in the existing NEPA regulations has led courts to fill the gaps, spurring costly litigation across the sector, and has led to unclear expectations, which has caused significant and unnecessary delays for infrastructure projects across the country,” the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America said in a statement.
Last night, the American Wind Energy Association said NEPA rules have caused “unreasonable and unnecessary costs and long project delays” for land-based and offshore wind energy and transmission development.
Trump has famously attacked the wind energy industry for decades, dating back to his opposition to a Scottish wind turbine near his golf course.
The president today said he won’t stop until “gleaming new infrastructure has made America the envy of the world again.”
When asked whether he thought climate change was a “hoax,” as he once tweeted, he said no. “Nothing’s a hoax about that,” he said.
The president said there’s a book about climate he’s planning to read. He said, “It’s a very serious subject.”
Hydro-Qu E9bec Class-Action Lawsuit alleges overbilling and monopoly abuse, citing R E9gie de l' E9nergie rate increases, Quebec Superior Court filings, and calls for refunds on 2008-2013 electricity bills to residential and business customers.
Key Points
Quebec class action alleging Hydro-Qu E9bec overbilled customers in 2008-2013, seeking court-ordered refunds.
✅ Filed in Quebec Superior Court; certification pending.
✅ Alleges up to $1.2B in overcharges from 2008-2013.
✅ Questions R E9gie de l' E9nergie rate approvals and data.
A group representing Hydro-Québec customers has filed a motion for a class-action lawsuit against the public utility, alleging it overcharged customers over a five-year period.
Freddy Molima, one of the representatives of the Coalition Peuple allumé, accuses Hydro-Québec of "abusing its monopoly."
The motion, which was filed in Quebec Superior Court, claims Hydro-Québec customers paid more than they should have for electricity between 2008 and 2013, to the tune of nearly $1.2 billion, even as Hydro-Québec later refunded $535 million to customers in a separate case.
The coalition has so far recruited nearly 40,000 participants online as part of its plan to sue the public utility.
A lawyer representing the group said Quebec's energy board, the Régie de l'énergie, also recently approved Hydro-Québec rate increases for residential and business customers without knowing all the facts, even as Manitoba Hydro hikes face opposition in regulatory hearings.
"There's certain information provided to the Régie that isn't true," said Bryan Furlong. "Hydro-Québec has not been providing the Régie the proper numbers."
In its motion, the group asks that overcharged clients be retroactively reimbursed.
Hydro-Québec denies allegations
Hydro-Québec, for its part, denies it ever overbilled any of its clients, while other utilities such as Hydro One plan to redesign bills to improve clarity.
"All our efficiencies have been returned to the government through our profits, and to Quebecers we have billed exactly what we agreed to bill," said spokesperson Serge Abergel, adding that the utility won't seek a rate hike next year according to its current plans.
Quebec Energy Minister Pierre Moreau also came to the public utility's defence, saying it has no choice but to comply with the energy board's regulations, while customer protections are in focus as Hydro One moves to reconnect 1,400 customers in Ontario.
The group says the public utility has overbilled clients by up to $1.2 billion. (Radio-Canada)
It would be "shocking" if customers were charged too much money, he added.
"I know for a fact that Hydro-Québec is respecting the decision of this body," he said.
While the motion has been filed, the group cannot say how much each customer would receive if the class-action lawsuit goes ahead because it all depends on how much electricity was consumed by each client over that five-year period.
The coalition plans to present its motion to a judge next February.
San Juan Generating Station eyed for $1 coal-plant sale, as Farmington and Acme propose CCS retrofit, meeting emissions caps and renewable mandates by selling captured CO2 for enhanced oil recovery via a nearby pipeline.
Key Points
A New Mexico coal plant eyed for $1 and a CCS retrofit to cut emissions and sell CO2 for enhanced oil recovery.
✅ $400M-$800M CCS retrofit; 90% CO2 capture target
✅ CO2 sales for enhanced oil recovery; 20-mile pipeline gap
✅ PNM projects shutdown savings; renewable and emissions mandates
One dollar. That’s how much an aging New Mexico coal plant is worth. And by some estimates, even that may be too much.
Acme Equities LLC, a New York-based holding company, is in talks to buy the 847-megawatt San Juan Generating Station for $1, after four of its five owners decided to shut it down. The fifth owner, the nearby city of Farmington, says it’s pursuing the bargain-basement deal with Acme to avoid losing about 1,600 direct and indirect jobs in the area amid a broader just transition debate for energy workers.
We respectfully disagree with the notion that the plant is not economical
Acme’s interest comes as others are looking to exit a coal industry that’s been plagued by costly anti-pollution regulations. Acme’s plan: Buy the plant "at a very low cost," invest in carbon capture technology that will lower emissions, and then sell the captured CO2 to oil companies, said Larry Heller, a principal at the holding group.
By doing this, Acme “believes we can generate an acceptable rate of return,” Heller said in an email.
Meanwhile, San Juan’s majority owner, PNM Resources Inc., offers a distinctly different view, echoing declining coal returns reported by other utilities. A 2022 shutdown will push ratepayers to other energy alternatives now being planned, saving them about $3 to $4 a month on average, PNM has said.
“We could not identify a solution that would make running San Juan Generating Station economical,” said Tom Fallgren, a PNM vice president, in an email.
The potential sale comes as a new clean-energy bill, supported by Governor Lujan Grisham, is working its way through the state legislature. It would require the state to get half of its power from renewable sources by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045, even as other jurisdictions explore small modular reactor strategies to meet future demand. At the same time, the legislation imposes an emissions cap that’s about 60 percent lower than San Juan’s current levels.
In response, Acme is planning to spend $400 million to $800 million to retrofit the facility with carbon capture and sequestration technology that would collect carbon dioxide before it’s released into the atmosphere, Heller said. That would put the facility into compliance with the pending legislation and, at the same time, help generate revenue for the plant.
The company estimates the system would cut emissions by as much as 90 percent, and the captured gas could be sold to oil companies, which uses it to enhance well recovery. The bottom line, according to Heller: “A winning financial formula.”
It’s a tricky formula at best. Carbon-capture technology has been controversial, even as new coal plant openings remain rare, expensive to install and unproven at scale. Additionally, to make it work at the San Juan plant, the company would need to figure out how to deliver the CO2 to customers since the nearest pipeline is about 20 miles (32 kilometers) away.
Reducing costs
Acme is also evaluating ways to reduce costs at San Juan, Heller said, including approaches seen at operators extending the life of coal plants under regulatory scrutiny, such as negotiating a cheaper coal-supply contract and qualifying for subsidies.
Farmington’s stake in the plant is less than 10 percent. But under terms of the partnership, the city — population 45,000 — can assume full control of San Juan should the other partners decide to pull out, mirroring policy debates over saving struggling nuclear plants in other regions. That’s given Farmington the legal authority to pursue the plant’s sale to Acme.
At the end of the day, nobody wants the energy
“We respectfully disagree with the notion that the plant is not economical,” Farmington Mayor Nate Duckett said by email. Ducket said he’s in better position than the other owners to assess San Juan’s importance “because we sit at Ground Zero.”
The city’s economy would benefit from keeping open both the plant and a nearby coal mine that feeds it, according to Duckett, with operations that contribute about $170 million annually to the local area.
While the loss of those jobs would be painful to some, Camilla Feibelman, a Sierra Club chapter director, is hard pressed to see a business case for keeping San Juan open, pointing to sector closures such as the Three Mile Island shutdown as evidence of shifting economics. The plant isn’t economical now, and would almost certainly be less so after investing the capital to add carbon-capture systems.
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.
Alberta Solar Power is accelerating as renewable energy investment, PPAs, and utility-scale projects expand the grid, with independent power producers and foreign capital outperforming AESO forecasts in oil-and-gas-rich markets across Alberta and Calgary.
Key Points
Alberta Solar Power is a fast-growing provincial market, driven by PPAs and private investment, outpacing AESO forecasts.
✅ Utility-scale projects and PPAs expand capacity beyond AESO outlooks
✅ Private and foreign capital drive independent power producers
✅ Costs near $70/MWh challenge >$100/MWh assumptions
Solar power is beating expectations in oil and gas rich Alberta, where the renewable energy source is poised to expand dramatically amid a renewable energy surge in the coming years as international power companies invest in the province.
Fresh capital is being deployed in the Alberta’s electricity generation sector for both renewable and natural gas-fired power projects after years of uncertainty caused by changes and reversals in the province’s power market, said Duane Reid-Carlson, president of power consulting firm EDC Associates, who advises renewable power developers on electric projects in the province.
“From the mix of projects that we see in the queue at the (Alberta Electric System Operator) and the projects that have been announced, Alberta, a powerhouse for both green energy and fossil fuels, has no shortage of thermal and renewable projects,” Reid-Carlson said, adding that he sees “a great mix” of independent power companies and foreign firms looking to build renewable projects in Alberta.
Alberta is a unique power market in Canada because its electricity supply is not dominated by a Crown corporation such as BC Hydro, Hydro One or Hydro Quebec. Instead, a mix of private-sector companies and a few municipally owned utilities generate electricity, transmit and distribute that power to households and industries under long-term contracts.
Last week, Perimeter Solar Inc., backed by Danish solar power investor Obton AS, announced Sept. 30 that it had struck a deal to sell renewable energy to Calgary-based pipeline giant TC Energy Corp. with 74.25 megawatts of electricity from a new 130-MW solar power project immediately south of Calgary. Neither company disclosed the costs of the transaction or the project.
“We are very pleased that of all the potential off-takers in the market for energy, we have signed with a company as reputable as TC Energy,” Obton CEO Anders Marcus said in a release announcing the deal, which it called “the largest negotiated energy supply agreement with a North American energy company.”
Perimeter expects to break ground on the project, which will more than double the amount of solar power being produced in the province, by the end of this year.
A report published Monday by the Energy Information Administration, a unit of the U.S. Department of Energy, estimated that renewable energy powered 3 per cent of Canada’s energy consumption in 2018.
Between the Claresholm project and other planned solar installations, utility companies are poised to install far more solar power than the province is currently planning for, even as Alberta faces challenges with solar expansion today.
University of Calgary adjunct professor Blake Shaffer said it was “ironic” that the Claresholm Solar project was announced the exact same day as the Alberta Electric System Operator released a forecast that under-projected the amount of solar in the province’s electric grid.
The power grid operator (AESO) released its forecast on Sept. 30, which predicted that solar power projects would provide just 1 per cent of Alberta’s electricity supply by 2030 at 231 megawatts.
Shaffer said the AESO, which manages and operates the province’s electricity grid, is assuming that on a levelized basis solar power will need a price over $100 per megawatt hour for new investment. However, he said, based on recent solar contracts for government infrastructure projects, the cost is closer to $70 MW/h.
Most forecasting organizations like the International Energy Agency have had to adjust their forecasts for solar power adoption higher in the past, as growth of the renewable energy source has outperformed expectations.
Calgary-based Greengate Power has also proposed a $500-million, 400-MW solar project near Vulcan, a town roughly one-hour by car southeast of Calgary.
“So now we’re getting close to 700 MW (of solar power),” Shaffer said, which is three times the AESO forecast.
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.
