https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3pSounds a bit "AI or web translator doesn't properly understand" ...
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.
Graham. wrote:
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least notSounds a bit "AI or web translator doesn't properly understand" ...
in the context of power transmission.
Supposedly the portugese grid has a new article, but it's gone all 500
<https://www.ren.pt/en-gb/media/news/power-outage-across-the-iberian-peninsula-affects-portugal>
Bloomberg's Javier Blas noted:
"Before the outage hit, Spain was running its grid with very little
dispatchable spinning generation, and therefore no much inertia.
Joe wrote:
Bloomberg's Javier Blas noted:
"Before the outage hit, Spain was running its grid with very little >> dispatchable spinning generation, and therefore no much inertia.
Yes, I posted that earlier ...
Looks like they lost 3/4 of their solar, all their nuclear and all their interconnects at once, it was slowly coming back.
Only 4 out of 7 nuclear plants operating before, and 3 of those were
in Catalonia. Nuclear apparently lost shortly after something else.
Nick Finnigan wrote:
Only 4 out of 7 nuclear plants operating before, and 3 of those were in >> Catalonia. Nuclear apparently lost shortly after something else.
sky.au reports that Spain recently introduced a new policy of maximising renewables.
If you look at the recent graphs, they seem to have pegged non-renewables between 9am and 6pm, creating a noticeable dip of about 5GW.
Graham. wrote:
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3pSounds a bit "AI or web translator doesn't properly understand" ...
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.
Supposedly the portugese grid has a new article, but it's gone all 500
<https://www.ren.pt/en-gb/media/news/power-outage-across-the-iberian- peninsula-affects-portugal>
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.
Well, that's when 18GW of solar kicks in,
and they seems to be exporting 4.5GW
It is being reported this morning that the inter-connector to France
tripped, and that caused the Spanish and Portuguese grids to trip.
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.
On 28/04/2025 20:02, Andy Burns wrote:
Joe wrote:
Bloomberg's Javier Blas noted:Yes, I posted that earlier ...
"Before the outage hit, Spain was running its grid with very little
dispatchable spinning generation, and therefore no much inertia. >>
Looks like they lost 3/4 of their solar, all their nuclear and all
their interconnects at once, it was slowly coming back.
Only 4 out of 7 nuclear plants operating before, and 3 of those were
in Catalonia. Nuclear apparently lost shortly after something else.
https://www.mundoamerica.com/news/2025/04/28/680f8371fc6c83a3358b45a1.html
(induced atmospheric oscillations do seem to be real, but very little evidence for them being the initial trigger).
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.
On 28/04/2025 17:16, Graham. wrote:
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.
Its just something someone dreamed up in a panic to hide the awkward
truth. Too much 'renewable' energy..
David wrote:
It is being reported this morning that the inter-connector to France
tripped, and that caused the Spanish and Portuguese grids to trip.
The spain/france connector wasn't doing a huge amount at the time of the blackout, it's possible it saw frequency variations and isolated itself?
<http://andyburns.uk/misc/spain-connectors.png>
Graham. <usenet@yopmail.com> wrote:
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.
Is it possible that the prospect of instability in such a grid running on
so high a proportion of renewables was foreseen, and an explanation that no-one has ever heard of in this context thought up in advance to be
deployed where necessary?
On 28/04/2025 17:16, Graham. wrote:
Very strong auroras are known to disrupt power grids, Canada being
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.
nearer the Auroral Circle is very prone to this effect.
On 29/04/2025 10:41, Spike wrote:
Graham. <usenet@yopmail.com> wrote:No,. It has all the inconsistency and vagueness of something thought up
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.
Is it possible that the prospect of instability in such a grid running on
so high a proportion of renewables was foreseen, and an explanation that
no-one has ever heard of in this context thought up in advance to be
deployed where necessary?
in a few minutes in a harassed PR department of some grid operator. 'Can
we blame it on climate change' 'well let's invent some term that kind of looks like it'
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.
On 29/04/2025 09:21, David wrote:
On 28/04/2025 17:16, Graham. wrote:
Very strong auroras are known to disrupt power grids, Canada being
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.
nearer the Auroral Circle is very prone to this effect.
Indeed. So says today's daily express. However there were no strong
auroras and Spain is a long way from the North pole
Can't you smell the bullshit?
This is a disaster that could turn the whole tax paying public
completely off renewable energy. The truth cannot be allowed to come out...
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 10:41, Spike wrote:
Graham. <usenet@yopmail.com> wrote:No,. It has all the inconsistency and vagueness of something thought up
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.
Is it possible that the prospect of instability in such a grid running on >>> so high a proportion of renewables was foreseen, and an explanation that >>> no-one has ever heard of in this context thought up in advance to be
deployed where necessary?
in a few minutes in a harassed PR department of some grid operator. 'Can
we blame it on climate change' 'well let's invent some term that kind of
looks like it'
This looks like a well-founded assessment:
<https://en.meteorologiaenred.com/What-is-induced-atmospheric-vibration-and-why-has-it-been-key-in-the-great-power-blackout.html>
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.
On 29/04/2025 00:06, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 28/04/2025 20:02, Andy Burns wrote:
Joe wrote:
Bloomberg's Javier Blas noted:
"Before the outage hit, Spain was running its grid with very
little dispatchable spinning generation, and therefore no much
inertia.
Yes, I posted that earlier ...
Looks like they lost 3/4 of their solar, all their nuclear and all
their interconnects at once, it was slowly coming back.
Only 4 out of 7 nuclear plants operating before, and 3 of those
were in Catalonia. Nuclear apparently lost shortly after something
else.
https://www.mundoamerica.com/news/2025/04/28/680f8371fc6c83a3358b45a1.html
(induced atmospheric oscillations do seem to be real, but very
little evidence for them being the initial trigger).
Most power plants will disconnect immediately from a grid that's lost
its frequency stability.
*Especially* plant that connects via inverters - e.g all solar and
all wind and DC interconnects.
Spinning mass generators will last a little longer, but even they
can't hold up a grid in massive overload.
Once it gets to a certain point unless the grid itself disconnects
the load the spinning mass generators will all trip off line, as
well.
In message <09av0kdghfkgldkbke0fp353oulueocgas@4ax.com>, Graham. <usenet@yopmail.com> writes
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.
Power lines are huge long L-C networks. If there is a disturbance you
can get damped oscillations in voltage which is Bad News. The sense
circuitry then disconnects the generators and the HV lines .
I've still no idea what caused it in the first place, but it looks like
the use of wind and solar makes it more susceptible. The UK grid has synchronous machines that store energy to try to stop this,
<https://www.statkraft.co.uk/newsroom/2023/grid-services-innovative-solut ions-to-stabilise-the-power-grid/>
Fun eh ?
Brian
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 11:54:43 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 00:06, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 28/04/2025 20:02, Andy Burns wrote:
Joe wrote:
Bloomberg's Javier Blas noted:
"Before the outage hit, Spain was running its grid with very >>>>> little dispatchable spinning generation, and therefore no much
inertia.
Yes, I posted that earlier ...
Looks like they lost 3/4 of their solar, all their nuclear and all
their interconnects at once, it was slowly coming back.
Only 4 out of 7 nuclear plants operating before, and 3 of those
were in Catalonia. Nuclear apparently lost shortly after something
else.
https://www.mundoamerica.com/news/2025/04/28/680f8371fc6c83a3358b45a1.html >>>
(induced atmospheric oscillations do seem to be real, but very
little evidence for them being the initial trigger).
Most power plants will disconnect immediately from a grid that's lost
its frequency stability.
*Especially* plant that connects via inverters - e.g all solar and
all wind and DC interconnects.
Spinning mass generators will last a little longer, but even they
can't hold up a grid in massive overload.
Once it gets to a certain point unless the grid itself disconnects
the load the spinning mass generators will all trip off line, as
well.
I've seen a figure of a frequency drop of 0.15Hz triggering the
shutdowns. If you're trying to synchronise AC power across a continent,
you really can't afford much unplanned phase shift anywhere.
It is well understood that if you can't produce more power pretty much instantly, that kind of grid is chaotic i.e. the proverbial butterfly flapping its wings might cause a domino chain of cutouts. There doesn't really need to be a significant and blameable cause. A cloud passing
between the Sun and a large solar installation could be the initial
trigger,
Germany had already realised this and was thinking carefully about
adding more renewable energy to its grid.
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 13:39:04 +0100
Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
I've just seen this in the Telegraph:
"Britain’s electricity grid operator is investigating unexplained power plant failures that hit the UK’s system hours before Spain and Portugal were plunged into blackouts.
On 29/04/2025 00:06, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 28/04/2025 20:02, Andy Burns wrote:
Joe wrote:
Bloomberg's Javier Blas noted:
"Before the outage hit, Spain was running its grid with very little >>>> dispatchable spinning generation, and therefore no much inertia.
Yes, I posted that earlier ...
Looks like they lost 3/4 of their solar, all their nuclear and all
their interconnects at once, it was slowly coming back.
Only 4 out of 7 nuclear plants operating before, and 3 of those were
in Catalonia. Nuclear apparently lost shortly after something else.
https://www.mundoamerica.com/news/2025/04/28/680f8371fc6c83a3358b45a1.html >>
(induced atmospheric oscillations do seem to be real, but very little
evidence for them being the initial trigger).
Most power plants will disconnect immediately from a grid that's lost
its frequency stability.
*Especially* plant that connects via inverters - e.g all solar and all
wind and DC interconnects.
Spinning mass generators will last a little longer, but even they can't
hold up a grid in massive overload.
Once it gets to a certain point unless the grid itself disconnects the
load the spinning mass generators will all trip off line, as well.
On 28/04/2025 17:16, Graham. wrote:
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.
Does Spain have 'smart' meters? A sudden national demand drop at 12:30
from 27GW to 15GW could be the likes of Putin's codesmiths remotely commanding millions of such meters to disconnect from the supply, all at
the same time
In article <vuqcku$1k1j6$16@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
Nothing has changed in power grids for decades and this phenomenon only
shows up as 'being important' when renewable energy reaches a new high?
I suppose that somewhere a generation source came off line the removal
of that load caused the frequency to go too high so the other connected
ones said sod this were leaving and that happened very quickly.
So as we here know as much as anyone apart from adding some hefty
flywheels what's to be dome?...
On 29/04/2025 12:07, Spike wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 10:41, Spike wrote:
Graham. <usenet@yopmail.com> wrote:No,. It has all the inconsistency and vagueness of something thought up
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not >>>>> in the context of power transmission.
Is it possible that the prospect of instability in such a grid running on >>>> so high a proportion of renewables was foreseen, and an explanation that >>>> no-one has ever heard of in this context thought up in advance to be
deployed where necessary?
in a few minutes in a harassed PR department of some grid operator. 'Can >>> we blame it on climate change' 'well let's invent some term that kind of >>> looks like it'
This looks like a well-founded assessment:
<https://en.meteorologiaenred.com/What-is-induced-atmospheric-vibration-and- >why-has-it-been-key-in-the-great-power-blackout.html>
It is utter bullshit.
Nothing has changed in power grids for decades and this phenomenon only
shows up as 'being important' when renewable energy reaches a new high?
I have a bridge to sell you
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
In article <vuqcku$1k1j6$16@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
Nothing has changed in power grids for decades and this phenomenon
only shows up as 'being important' when renewable energy reaches a
new high?
I suppose that somewhere a generation source came off line the
removal of that load caused the frequency to go too high so the
other connected ones said sod this were leaving and that happened
very quickly.
So as we here know as much as anyone apart from adding some hefty
flywheels what's to be dome?...
The usual answer given by the renewables-believers to these problems
is to demand yet more renewables…
On 29/04/2025 12:32, N_Cook wrote:
On 28/04/2025 17:16, Graham. wrote:
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.
Does Spain have 'smart' meters? A sudden national demand drop at 12:30
from 27GW to 15GW could be the likes of Putin's codesmiths remotely
commanding millions of such meters to disconnect from the supply, all at
the same time
Having a house in Spain there are a few differences between there and
the UK which seem relevant. Nearly every one has a smart meter. They are legally required. You pay for it as at a daily rate which is itemised on
the bill. My last bill says @ 0.026630 Eur/day.
Second, your standing charge depends on your maximum permitted load. I
Mine is 5.75kw charged at 0.117456 Eur/Kw/Day.. Exceed this and your
smart meter will cut your power. You have to switch off the main switch
to reset it.
Lastly, nearly every one has time dependant tariffs, either three level
or "by-the-hour". I wonder if this last one caused a surge in demand as
the rate switched....
Dave
I've seen a figure of a frequency drop of 0.15Hz triggering the
shutdowns. If you're trying to synchronise AC power across a continent,
you really can't afford much unplanned phase shift anywhere.
Joe wrote:
I've seen a figure of a frequency drop of 0.15Hz triggering the
shutdowns. If you're trying to synchronise AC power across a continent,
you really can't afford much unplanned phase shift anywhere.
I couldn't see a Spanish grid frequency monitoring site, but AFAIK
mainland Europe is all sync'ed, and I found a German one showing a dip
to 49.85Hz
<https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/frequency/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE×lider=1&hour=11&datetimepicker=28.04.2025>
Assuming the work on a similar tolerance to the UK of +/- 1% they were
well within limits.
"Britain’s electricity grid operator is investigating unexplained power plant failures that hit the UK’s system hours before Spain and Portugal were plunged into blackouts.
Control room staff at the National Energy System Operator (Neso)
observed unusual activity on Sunday that saw the power frequency shift unexpectedly in the early morning and the evening."
On 29/04/2025 12:32, N_Cook wrote:
On 28/04/2025 17:16, Graham. wrote:
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.
Does Spain have 'smart' meters? A sudden national demand drop at
12:30 from 27GW to 15GW could be the likes of Putin's codesmiths
remotely commanding millions of such meters to disconnect from the
supply, all at the same time
Having a house in Spain there are a few differences between there and
the UK which seem relevant. Nearly every one has a smart meter. They are legally required. You pay for it as at a daily rate which is itemised on
the bill. My last bill says @ 0.026630 Eur/day.
Second, your standing charge depends on your maximum permitted load. I
Mine is 5.75kw charged at 0.117456 Eur/Kw/Day.. Exceed this and your
smart meter will cut your power. You have to switch off the main switch
to reset it.
Lastly, nearly every one has time dependant tariffs, either three level
or "by-the-hour". I wonder if this last one caused a surge in demand as
the rate switched....
Dave
On 29/04/2025 13:57, Joe wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 13:39:04 +0100
Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
I've just seen this in the Telegraph:
"Britain’s electricity grid operator is investigating unexplained power
plant failures that hit the UK’s system hours before Spain and Portugal
were plunged into blackouts.
The beeb is suggesting 2 disconnection events in south west Spain within
a second, reminiscent of Hornsea 6 years ago.
In message <09av0kdghfkgldkbke0fp353oulueocgas@4ax.com>, Graham. <usenet@yopmail.com> writes
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.
Power lines are huge long L-C networks. If there is a disturbance you can get damped oscillations in voltage which is Bad News. The sense circuitry then disconnects the generators and the HV lines .
It's a b@@er to get it all started up again.
<Https://jkempenergy.com/2025/04/28/iberian-peninsula-hit-by-mass-blackou t-and-attempts-black-start/>
I've still no idea what caused it in the first place, but it looks like the use of wind and solar makes it more susceptible. The UK grid has synchronous machines that store energy to try to stop this,
<https://www.statkraft.co.uk/newsroom/2023/grid-services-innovative-solut ions-to-stabilise-the-power-grid/>
Fun eh ?
Brian
On 29/04/2025 13:57, Joe wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 13:39:04 +0100
Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
I've just seen this in the Telegraph:
"Britain’s electricity grid operator is investigating unexplained power
plant failures that hit the UK’s system hours before Spain and Portugal
were plunged into blackouts.
The beeb is suggesting 2 disconnection events in south west Spain
within a second, reminiscent of Hornsea 6 years ago.
In article <vuqcku$1k1j6$16@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
On 29/04/2025 12:07, Spike wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:why-has-it-been-key-in-the-great-power-blackout.html>
On 29/04/2025 10:41, Spike wrote:
Graham. <usenet@yopmail.com> wrote:No,. It has all the inconsistency and vagueness of something thought up >>>> in a few minutes in a harassed PR department of some grid operator. 'Can >>>> we blame it on climate change' 'well let's invent some term that kind of >>>> looks like it'
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not >>>>>> in the context of power transmission.
Is it possible that the prospect of instability in such a grid running on >>>>> so high a proportion of renewables was foreseen, and an explanation that >>>>> no-one has ever heard of in this context thought up in advance to be >>>>> deployed where necessary?
This looks like a well-founded assessment:
<https://en.meteorologiaenred.com/What-is-induced-atmospheric-vibration-and-
It is utter bullshit.
Nothing has changed in power grids for decades and this phenomenon only
shows up as 'being important' when renewable energy reaches a new high?
I have a bridge to sell you
I suppose that somewhere a generation source came off line the removal
of that load caused the frequency to go too high so the other connected
ones said sod this were leaving and that happened very quickly.
So as we here know as much as anyone apart from adding some hefty
flywheels what's to be dome?...
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
In article <vuqcku$1k1j6$16@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
Nothing has changed in power grids for decades and this phenomenon only
shows up as 'being important' when renewable energy reaches a new high?
I suppose that somewhere a generation source came off line the removal
of that load caused the frequency to go too high so the other connected
ones said sod this were leaving and that happened very quickly.
So as we here know as much as anyone apart from adding some hefty
flywheels what's to be dome?...
The usual answer given by the renewables-believers to these problems is to demand yet more renewables…
Joe wrote:
I've seen a figure of a frequency drop of 0.15Hz triggering the
shutdowns. If you're trying to synchronise AC power across a continent,
you really can't afford much unplanned phase shift anywhere.
I couldn't see a Spanish grid frequency monitoring site, but AFAIK
mainland Europe is all sync'ed, and I found a German one showing a dip
to 49.85Hz
<https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/frequency/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE×lider=1&hour=11&datetimepicker=28.04.2025>
Assuming the work on a similar tolerance to the UK of +/- 1% they were
well within limits.
There is a claim they lost 15 GW of generation, in a matter of a couple seconds.
They now have to backtrack, check the waveforms, and see why those
facilities kicked out.
I suspect at this point, these "single data point" observations
will have to wait, until all the "items" are aligned to figure
out the trigger. The 15 GW of generation, could drop out on the
frequency stability boundary 0.15 being hit. Something generated
the event, and the transient on the HV facility could be
the "result" of something else tripping, and not the cause.
It wouldn't surprise me if it turned out that there was some component
in the Iberian electricity system that was more sensitive to a frequency
drop than it should have been and that this pulled the whole system apart.
On Tue, 4/29/2025 7:19 AM, brian wrote:
In message <09av0kdghfkgldkbke0fp353oulueocgas@4ax.com>, Graham. <usenet@yopmail.com> writes
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.
Power lines are huge long L-C networks. If there is a disturbance you can get damped oscillations in voltage which is Bad News. The sense circuitry then disconnects the generators and the HV lines .
It's a b@@er to get it all started up again.
<Https://jkempenergy.com/2025/04/28/iberian-peninsula-hit-by-mass-blackou
t-and-attempts-black-start/>
I've still no idea what caused it in the first place, but it looks like the use of wind and solar makes it more susceptible. The UK grid has synchronous machines that store energy to try to stop this,
<https://www.statkraft.co.uk/newsroom/2023/grid-services-innovative-solut
ions-to-stabilise-the-power-grid/>
Fun eh ?
Brian
There is a claim they lost 15 GW of generation, in a matter of a couple seconds.
They now have to backtrack, check the waveforms, and see why those
facilities kicked out.
I suspect at this point, these "single data point" observations
will have to wait, until all the "items" are aligned to figure
out the trigger. The 15 GW of generation, could drop out on the
frequency stability boundary 0.15 being hit. Something generated
the event, and the transient on the HV facility could be
the "result" of something else tripping, and not the cause.
It can take quite a while, to do a good job on the analysis.
It also depends on enough instrumentation being available,
and if you have a shitload of renewables, what are the odds all
of those have atomic clocks and loggers.
Paul
On 29 Apr 2025 at 14:39:53 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 13:57, Joe wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 13:39:04 +0100
Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
I've just seen this in the Telegraph:
"Britain’s electricity grid operator is investigating unexplained power >>> plant failures that hit the UK’s system hours before Spain and Portugal >>> were plunged into blackouts.
The beeb is suggesting 2 disconnection events in south west Spain within >> a second, reminiscent of Hornsea 6 years ago.
Each time I try to price up what it would cost to have enough battery to cover
a (say) five-day dunkelflaute, I get a figure in the region of £1,000,000,000,000.00
Can anyone do any better?
As I found with gridwatch you simply don't see sub minute fluctuations
on ANYTHING in the online data.
It only takes 5 seconds of well below 50Hz to start a whole cascade of disconnects
On 29/04/2025 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
As I found with gridwatch you simply don't see sub minute fluctuations
on ANYTHING in the online data.
It only takes 5 seconds of well below 50Hz to start a whole cascade of
disconnects
Not from official sources, but this site takes a reading per second, and
does some statistical analysis on them
<http://mainsfrequency.uk/live600>
On 4/29/25 14:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/04/2025 12:19, brian wrote:
In message <09av0kdghfkgldkbke0fp353oulueocgas@4ax.com>, Graham.Its not voltage oscillations that cause blackouts, its frequency
<usenet@yopmail.com> writes
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least
not in the context of power transmission.
Power lines are huge long L-C networks. If there is a disturbance
you can get damped oscillations in voltage which is Bad News. The
sense circuitry then disconnects the generators and the HV lines .
ones./
Power lines haven't changed in decades, This has never happened
before. What has chanbged is the amount of renewable energy
I rest my case
AIUI Power grids had changed with the introduction of long distance interconnectors. Long distances have to consider phase differences in
AC. I think they now do this by converting to HVDC and converting
back. This conversion process is a changing, developing technology.
Naively, I would expect long distance interconnectors to allow
isolation of difference regions, whereas a national distribution/synchronisation software might produce a widespread
problem.
I presume the people in charge have a good idea of what went wrong
and are just figuring out how to assign the blame, for public
consumption.
AIUI Power grids had changed with the introduction of long distance interconnectors.
Long distances have to consider phase differences in
AC. I think they now do this by converting to HVDC and converting back.
This conversion process is a changing, developing technology.
Naively, I would expect long distance interconnectors to allow isolation
of difference regions, whereas a national distribution/synchronisation software might produce a widespread problem.
are just figuring out how to assign the blame, for public consumption.I think the mere fact they are calling for "no speculation" guarantees
On 29/04/2025 12:19, brian wrote:
In message <09av0kdghfkgldkbke0fp353oulueocgas@4ax.com>, Graham.Its not voltage oscillations that cause blackouts, its frequency ones./
<usenet@yopmail.com> writes
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.
Power lines are huge long L-C networks. If there is a disturbance you
can get damped oscillations in voltage which is Bad News. The sense
circuitry then disconnects the generators and the HV lines .
Power lines haven't changed in decades, This has never happened before.
What has chanbged is the amount of renewable energy
I rest my case
<...>
I've still no idea what caused it in the first place, but it looksIt could be a sparrow shitting on an insulator. It doesn't matter what
like the use of wind and solar makes it more susceptible. The UK grid
has synchronous machines that store energy to try to stop this,
makes a ball balanced on a pin start to fall off, the fact is that once
it starts, it will inevitably fall.
<https://www.statkraft.co.uk/newsroom/2023/grid-services-innovative-solut
ions-to-stabilise-the-power-grid/>
More expense to do what any decent nuclear power station does
automatically in the first place.
Fun eh ?No, just money and power grabbing dirty little EcoBollox™
Brian
On 29 Apr 2025 at 14:39:53 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 13:57, Joe wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 13:39:04 +0100
Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
I've just seen this in the Telegraph:
"Britain’s electricity grid operator is investigating unexplained power >>> plant failures that hit the UK’s system hours before Spain and Portugal >>> were plunged into blackouts.
The beeb is suggesting 2 disconnection events in south west Spain within >> a second, reminiscent of Hornsea 6 years ago.
Each time I try to price up what it would cost to have enough battery to cover
a (say) five-day dunkelflaute, I get a figure in the region of £1,000,000,000,000.00
On 29 Apr 2025 at 18:26:08 BST, Tim Streater wrote:
Each time I try to price up what it would cost to have enough battery to cover
a (say) five-day dunkelflaute, I get a figure in the region of
£1,000,000,000,000.00
A trillion? Basically UK government revenue from tax for a year. So wouldn't happen.
The point is to hit a compromise, and have sufficient balance between renewables and other - 'other' most likely being nuclear and gas. I don't think anybody suggests 100% renewable until cheap storage comes along.
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 18:26:08 BST, Tim Streater wrote:
Each time I try to price up what it would cost to have enough battery to cover
a (say) five-day dunkelflaute, I get a figure in the region of
£1,000,000,000,000.00
A trillion? Basically UK government revenue from tax for a year. So wouldn't >> happen.
The point is to hit a compromise, and have sufficient balance between
renewables and other - 'other' most likely being nuclear and gas. I don't
think anybody suggests 100% renewable until cheap storage comes along.
If the problem in Spain and Portugal is anything to do with the solar panel inverters, then unless better inverters come along grids with a high proportion of renewables will be inherently unstable.
The most reliable grid is one based on nuclear and gas, especially if the North Sea storage facility is re-opened so that it could be filled up with cheap summer gas ready for winter. That would be rather cheaper than a £trillion per Dunkelflaute for battery storage.
On 29 Apr 2025 at 18:26:08 BST, Tim Streater wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 14:39:53 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 13:57, Joe wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 13:39:04 +0100
Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
I've just seen this in the Telegraph:
"Britain’s electricity grid operator is investigating unexplained power >>>> plant failures that hit the UK’s system hours before Spain and Portugal >>>> were plunged into blackouts.
The beeb is suggesting 2 disconnection events in south west Spain within >>> a second, reminiscent of Hornsea 6 years ago.
Each time I try to price up what it would cost to have enough battery to cover
a (say) five-day dunkelflaute, I get a figure in the region of
£1,000,000,000,000.00
A trillion? Basically UK government revenue from tax for a year. So wouldn't happen.
The point is to hit a compromise, and have sufficient balance between renewables and other - 'other' most likely being nuclear and gas. I don't think anybody suggests 100% renewable until cheap storage comes along.
The system needs to include renewables. As I say, it needs compromise and balance. If cheap storage comes along, great. If not, do what you can with what you've got.
On 30 Apr 2025 at 10:22:39 BST, Spike wrote:
The most reliable grid is one based on nuclear and gas, especially if the
North Sea storage facility is re-opened so that it could be filled up with >> cheap summer gas ready for winter. That would be rather cheaper than a
£trillion per Dunkelflaute for battery storage.
The system needs to include renewables.
As I say, it needs compromise and balance.
If cheap storage comes along, great.
If not, do what you can with
what you've got.
This is the latest I've seen:
"Red Eléctrica said it identified two power generation loss incidents in southwest Spain – likely involving solar plants – that caused
instability in the Spanish power grid and contributed to a breakdown of
its interconnection to France, according to Reuters."
As I said, a cloud passing over the Sun...
AIUI Power grids had changed with the introduction of long distance interconnectors. Long distances have to consider phase differences in
AC. I think they now do this by converting to HVDC and converting back.
This conversion process is a changing, developing technology.
Naively, I would expect long distance interconnectors to allow isolation
of difference regions, whereas a national distribution/synchronisation software might produce a widespread problem.
I presume the people in charge have a good idea of what went wrong and
are just figuring out how to assign the blame, for public consumption.
Pancho wrote:
AIUI Power grids had changed with the introduction of long distance
interconnectors.
Interconnectors exist between grids (e.g UK and Europe) but as far as I know, not within grids.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Europe_Synchronous_Area>
Long distances have to consider phase differences in AC. I think they
now do this by converting to HVDC and converting back. This conversion
process is a changing, developing technology.
I was wondering, day to day does France have any control (other than by agreement) over how much power Spain sucks or squirts, similarly between Spain and Portugal etc? Sure, as a last resort they could pull a plug,
but is it all agreed that between such and such hours, country A will under-generate by x GW and country B will oversupply by x GW, and the
wires will "sort it out"?
Naively, I would expect long distance interconnectors to allow
isolation of difference regions, whereas a national
distribution/synchronisation software might produce a widespread problem.
Didn't all of Europe have an issue a few years ago, that synchronous
clocks were getting adrift because some countries weren't pulling their weight?
<https://www.entsoe.eu/news/2018/03/06/press-release-continuing-frequency-deviation-in-the-continental-european-power-system-originating-in-serbia-kosovo-political-solution-urgently-needed-in-addition-to-technical/>
; I presume the people in charge have a good idea of what went wrong andI think the mere fact they are calling for "no speculation" guarantees
are just figuring out how to assign the blame, for public consumption.
they know ...
The point is to hit a compromise, and have sufficient balance between renewables and other - 'other' most likely being nuclear and gas. I don't think anybody suggests 100% renewable until cheap storage comes along.
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 18:26:08 BST, Tim Streater wrote:
Each time I try to price up what it would cost to have enough battery to cover
a (say) five-day dunkelflaute, I get a figure in the region of
£1,000,000,000,000.00
A trillion? Basically UK government revenue from tax for a year. So wouldn't >> happen.
The point is to hit a compromise, and have sufficient balance between
renewables and other - 'other' most likely being nuclear and gas. I don't
think anybody suggests 100% renewable until cheap storage comes along.
If the problem in Spain and Portugal is anything to do with the solar panel inverters, then unless better inverters come along grids with a high proportion of renewables will be inherently unstable.
The most reliable grid is one based on nuclear and gas, especially if the North Sea storage facility is re-opened so that it could be filled up with cheap summer gas ready for winter. That would be rather cheaper than a £trillion per Dunkelflaute for battery storage.
On 30 Apr 2025 at 10:22:39 BST, Spike wrote:Bless!
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:So the system needs to be designed and operated properly.
On 29 Apr 2025 at 18:26:08 BST, Tim Streater wrote:
Each time I try to price up what it would cost to have enough battery to cover
a (say) five-day dunkelflaute, I get a figure in the region of
£1,000,000,000,000.00
A trillion? Basically UK government revenue from tax for a year. So wouldn't
happen.
The point is to hit a compromise, and have sufficient balance between
renewables and other - 'other' most likely being nuclear and gas. I don't >>> think anybody suggests 100% renewable until cheap storage comes along.
If the problem in Spain and Portugal is anything to do with the solar panel >> inverters, then unless better inverters come along grids with a high
proportion of renewables will be inherently unstable.
The most reliable grid is one based on nuclear and gas, especially if the
North Sea storage facility is re-opened so that it could be filled up with >> cheap summer gas ready for winter. That would be rather cheaper than a
£trillion per Dunkelflaute for battery storage.
The system needs to include renewables.
balance. If cheap storage comes along, great. If not, do what you can with what you've got.
My figure was calculated by taking the largest lithium-based facility I could find, getting its cost and capacity, and doing some sums. Simples.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 10:41, Spike wrote:
Graham. <usenet@yopmail.com> wrote:No,. It has all the inconsistency and vagueness of something thought up
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.
Is it possible that the prospect of instability in such a grid running on >>> so high a proportion of renewables was foreseen, and an explanation that >>> no-one has ever heard of in this context thought up in advance to be
deployed where necessary?
in a few minutes in a harassed PR department of some grid operator. 'Can
we blame it on climate change' 'well let's invent some term that kind of
looks like it'
This looks like a well-founded assessment:
<https://en.meteorologiaenred.com/What-is-induced-atmospheric-vibration-and-why-has-it-been-key-in-the-great-power-blackout.html>
On 30/04/2025 10:22, Spike wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 18:26:08 BST, Tim Streater wrote:
Each time I try to price up what it would cost to have enough battery to >cover
a (say) five-day dunkelflaute, I get a figure in the region of
1,000,000,000,000.00
A trillion? Basically UK government revenue from tax for a year. So wouldn't
happen.
The point is to hit a compromise, and have sufficient balance between
renewables and other - 'other' most likely being nuclear and gas. I don't >>> think anybody suggests 100% renewable until cheap storage comes along.
If the problem in Spain and Portugal is anything to do with the solar panel >> inverters, then unless better inverters come along grids with a high
proportion of renewables will be inherently unstable.
Its not simply the fault of the inverters.
It is the fact that there is no local *storage* of energy in a windmill
or solar panel *at all*.
Thermal power stations come with a sodding big lump of spinning turbine
and generators that contains a fair amount of energy that can handle
short term overloads.
That is why people add batteries to renewables - not to survive a cold
dark windless winters night, but to survive ten seconds of overload
till the fault can be isolated and the relevant links tripped.
Even a gas turbine or nuclear power plant will trip if it's under
permanent overload.
The problem here is that, having no storage at all, the renewables had
no choice but to disconnect the moment they were overloaded. That's why
the inverters are designed the way they are.
The most reliable grid is one based on nuclear and gas, especially if theAbsolutely. And hydro., in engineering terms hydro is the best of all
North Sea storage facility is re-opened so that it could be filled up with >> cheap summer gas ready for winter. That would be rather cheaper than a
trillion per Dunkelflaute for battery storage.
worlds, Instant power when you want it, can be shut down when you don't
need it.
The ideal UK grid would be around 30GW of nuclear, built near demand >centres, 20GW of gas plus the existing pumped and non pumped hydro.
And not a single fucking windmill to be seen. Or solar panel.
And carry on upgrading the nuclear as demand rises from other areas >transitioning off fossil fuel
If we could eliminate fossil fuel we would need around 100-200GW of
nuclear power.
On 4/30/25 10:45, RJH wrote:
The system needs to include renewables. As I say, it needs compromise and
balance. If cheap storage comes along, great. If not, do what you can
with
what you've got.
Why does the system need to include renewables?
We know nuclear works. We know it could be done much cheaper, possibly
hugely cheaper.
I see Tony Blair has decided to chip in, saying we should rely on carbon capture and nuclear fusion. Tony is great at aspirational politics, not
so good at pragmatic delivery. 30 years of politicians waiting for some
new technology to turn up, is why we are having problems now.
Wrong way round. If a generators goes offline the frequency drops.
It is utter bullshit.
Nothing has changed in power grids for decades and this phenomenon only
shows up as 'being important' when renewable energy reaches a new high?
I have a bridge to sell you
I suppose that somewhere a generation source came off line the removal
of that load caused the frequency to go too high so the other connected
ones said sod this were leaving and that happened very quickly.
And then the other stuff disconnects itself
So as we here know as much as anyone apart from adding some hefty
flywheels what's to be dome?...
Scrap renewables and build power stations that *have* inherently large >flywheels, called turbines and generators, in them.
It's so simple but no one dare admit that renewables were always a
completely stupid way to generate reliable electricity, and we need to
go back to thermal and hydro power stations running off stored energy
that can be ramped up and down and do have some inherent short term
energy storage on their rotating masses.
On 30/04/2025 11:08, Pancho wrote:
On 4/30/25 10:45, RJH wrote:
The system needs to include renewables. As I say, it needs compromise and >>> balance. If cheap storage comes along, great. If not, do what you can
with
what you've got.
Why does the system need to include renewables?
We know nuclear works. We know it could be done much cheaper, possibly
hugely cheaper.
I see Tony Blair has decided to chip in, saying we should rely on carbon
capture and nuclear fusion. Tony is great at aspirational politics, not
so good at pragmatic delivery. 30 years of politicians waiting for some
new technology to turn up, is why we are having problems now.
30 years of slavishly following EU diktats even after we had left is the problem
We need nuclear fission because we know exactly how to build it, and we
know it works.
We know nothing of the sort. Do you know how long it takes, and how much it costs to build a nuclear power station in the UK? Just google it . . . and then google the costs of decommissioning.
On 30 Apr 2025 at 12:28:41 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/04/2025 11:08, Pancho wrote:
On 4/30/25 10:45, RJH wrote:
The system needs to include renewables. As I say, it needs compromise and >>>> balance. If cheap storage comes along, great. If not, do what you can
with
what you've got.
Why does the system need to include renewables?
You know as well as (or better, probably) than me. Producing energy in the way
that we do is not sustainable - economically, environmentally, politically or socially.
We know nuclear works. We know it could be done much cheaper, possibly
hugely cheaper.
We know nothing of the sort. Do you know how long it takes, and how much it costs to build a nuclear power station in the UK? Just google it . . . and then google the costs of decommissioning.
I see Tony Blair has decided to chip in, saying we should rely on carbon >>> capture and nuclear fusion. Tony is great at aspirational politics, not
so good at pragmatic delivery. 30 years of politicians waiting for some
new technology to turn up, is why we are having problems now.
I think he's just tuning in to populism as a way to get into government.
30 years of slavishly following EU diktats even after we had left is the
problem
We need nuclear fission because we know exactly how to build it, and we
know it works.
Yes, that's all well and good, but the fact remains that we don't. When's the earliest we might see an SMR - 20 years?
On 30 Apr 2025 at 12:28:41 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/04/2025 11:08, Pancho wrote:
On 4/30/25 10:45, RJH wrote:
The system needs to include renewables. As I say, it needs compromise and >>>> balance. If cheap storage comes along, great. If not, do what you can
with
what you've got.
Why does the system need to include renewables?
You know as well as (or better, probably) than me. Producing energy in the way
that we do is not sustainable - economically, environmentally, politically or socially.
We know nuclear works. We know it could be done much cheaper, possibly
hugely cheaper.
We know nothing of the sort. Do you know how long it takes, and how much it costs to build a nuclear power station in the UK? Just google it . . . and then google the costs of decommissioning.
I see Tony Blair has decided to chip in, saying we should rely on carbon >>> capture and nuclear fusion. Tony is great at aspirational politics, not
so good at pragmatic delivery. 30 years of politicians waiting for some
new technology to turn up, is why we are having problems now.
I think he's just tuning in to populism as a way to get into government.
30 years of slavishly following EU diktats even after we had left is the
problem
We need nuclear fission because we know exactly how to build it, and we
know it works.
Yes, that's all well and good, but the fact remains that we don't. When's the earliest we might see an SMR - 20 years?
As has been discussed, the main problems are excessive regulation [of the nuclear industry]. We
know radiation is dangerous, but electricity is dangerous too. A
comparison would be because electricity is dangerous, we should regulate
1.5v batteries. That is an indicator of how excessive nuclear regulation is.
In article <vut09g$1uhh$5@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
On 30/04/2025 10:22, Spike wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 18:26:08 BST, Tim Streater wrote:
Each time I try to price up what it would cost to have enough battery to >> cover
a (say) five-day dunkelflaute, I get a figure in the region of
£1,000,000,000,000.00
A trillion? Basically UK government revenue from tax for a year. So wouldn't
happen.
The point is to hit a compromise, and have sufficient balance between
renewables and other - 'other' most likely being nuclear and gas. I don't >>>> think anybody suggests 100% renewable until cheap storage comes along.
If the problem in Spain and Portugal is anything to do with the solar panel >>> inverters, then unless better inverters come along grids with a high
proportion of renewables will be inherently unstable.
Its not simply the fault of the inverters.
It is the fact that there is no local *storage* of energy in a windmill
or solar panel *at all*.
Thermal power stations come with a sodding big lump of spinning turbine
and generators that contains a fair amount of energy that can handle
short term overloads.
That is why people add batteries to renewables - not to survive a cold
dark windless winters night, but to survive ten seconds of overload
till the fault can be isolated and the relevant links tripped.
Even a gas turbine or nuclear power plant will trip if it's under
permanent overload.
The problem here is that, having no storage at all, the renewables had
no choice but to disconnect the moment they were overloaded. That's why
the inverters are designed the way they are.
The most reliable grid is one based on nuclear and gas, especially if the >>> North Sea storage facility is re-opened so that it could be filled up with >>> cheap summer gas ready for winter. That would be rather cheaper than aAbsolutely. And hydro., in engineering terms hydro is the best of all
£trillion per Dunkelflaute for battery storage.
worlds, Instant power when you want it, can be shut down when you don't
need it.
Ain't got those hilly bits like le frogs have;(..
The ideal UK grid would be around 30GW of nuclear, built near demand
centres, 20GW of gas plus the existing pumped and non pumped hydro.
And not a single fucking windmill to be seen. Or solar panel.
And carry on upgrading the nuclear as demand rises from other areas
transitioning off fossil fuel
If we could eliminate fossil fuel we would need around 100-200GW of
nuclear power.
Agree with all the above. Does the amount of power you say we need
include replacing gas for heating domestically like what the French have done?..
On 30 Apr 2025 at 12:28:41 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/04/2025 11:08, Pancho wrote:
On 4/30/25 10:45, RJH wrote:
The system needs to include renewables. As I say, it needs compromise and >>>> balance. If cheap storage comes along, great. If not, do what you can
with
what you've got.
Why does the system need to include renewables?
You know as well as (or better, probably) than me. Producing energy in the way
that we do is not sustainable - economically, environmentally, politically or socially.
We know nuclear works. We know it could be done much cheaper, possibly
hugely cheaper.
We know nothing of the sort. Do you know how long it takes, and how much it costs to build a nuclear power station in the UK? Just google it . . . and then google the costs of decommissioning.
I see Tony Blair has decided to chip in, saying we should rely on carbon >>> capture and nuclear fusion. Tony is great at aspirational politics, not
so good at pragmatic delivery. 30 years of politicians waiting for some
new technology to turn up, is why we are having problems now.
I think he's just tuning in to populism as a way to get into government.
30 years of slavishly following EU diktats even after we had left is the
problem
We need nuclear fission because we know exactly how to build it, and we
know it works.
Yes, that's all well and good, but the fact remains that we don't. When's the earliest we might see an SMR - 20 years?
On 30 Apr 2025 at 14:20:29 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
Yes, that's all well and good, but the fact remains that we don't. When's the
earliest we might see an SMR - 20 years?
Now you're being absurd.
SMRs are just more pie in the sky technology designed to overcome the problems caused by politicians. We should build traditional large scale nuclear power stations now.No. They have signifiant cost and deployment and safety advantages over
On 30/04/2025 14:44, Tim Streater wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 at 14:20:29 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:No. He is *genuinely* ignorant of the true facts.
Yes, that's all well and good, but the fact remains that we don't. When's the
earliest we might see an SMR - 20 years?
Now you're being absurd.
Here's a quote
"The Rolls-Royce SMR has successfully completed Step Two of the GDA
which confirms Rolls-Royce SMR’s position as the leading SMR vendor in >Europe and the technology that is the furthest through any regulatory >assessment process anywhere in Europe.
Step 3 is currently underway, with an estimated completion date of
December 2026. Once the GDA is complete, construction of the SMR could
begin, potentially leading to a first-of-a-fleet (FOAF) unit being
deployed in the early 2030s"
Notice that the regulatory processes have taken over 5 YEARS before they
can even *start* putting welding torch to steel.
That's the tree huggers and the EUs fault
On 18:28 29 Apr 2025, Paul said:
On Tue, 4/29/2025 7:19 AM, brian wrote:
In message <09av0kdghfkgldkbke0fp353oulueocgas@4ax.com>, Graham.
<usenet@yopmail.com> writes
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least
not in the context of power transmission.
Power lines are huge long L-C networks. If there is a disturbance
you can get damped oscillations in voltage which is Bad News. The
sense circuitry then disconnects the generators and the HV lines .
It's a b@@er to get it all started up again.
<Https://jkempenergy.com/2025/04/28/iberian-peninsula-
hit-by-mass-blackou t-and-attempts-black-start/>
I've still no idea what caused it in the first place, but it looks
like the use of wind and solar makes it more susceptible. The UK
grid has synchronous machines that store energy to try to stop this,
<https://www.statkraft.co.uk/newsroom/2023/grid-services-
innovative-solut ions-to-stabilise-the-power-grid/>
Fun eh ?
Brian
There is a claim they lost 15 GW of generation, in a matter of a
couple seconds.
They now have to backtrack, check the waveforms, and see why those
facilities kicked out.
I suspect at this point, these "single data point" observations
will have to wait, until all the "items" are aligned to figure
out the trigger. The 15 GW of generation, could drop out on the
frequency stability boundary 0.15 being hit. Something generated
the event, and the transient on the HV facility could be
the "result" of something else tripping, and not the cause.
It can take quite a while, to do a good job on the analysis.
It also depends on enough instrumentation being available,
and if you have a shitload of renewables, what are the odds all
of those have atomic clocks and loggers.
Paul
A Spanish spokeman said it would take several months to determine the
cause but I suspect that is mainly because angry members of the public >wanting an explanation will have calmed down by then.
When's the earliest we might see an SMR - 20 years?
RJH wrote:
When's the earliest we might see an SMR - 20 years?
Despite what St Greta says, all of humanity won't be burnt to death if
it takes that long ... and I don't believe the 5 years to SMRs timescale either.
RJH wrote:Its entirely in the hands of the Office of Nuclear Regulation.
When's the earliest we might see an SMR - 20 years?
Despite what St Greta says, all of humanity won't be burnt to death if
it takes that long ... and I don't believe the 5 years to SMRs timescale either.
On 4/30/25 16:46, Andy Burns wrote:And far far less than a super volcano in Yosemite or being hit by a
RJH wrote:
When's the earliest we might see an SMR - 20 years?
Despite what St Greta says, all of humanity won't be burnt to death if
it takes that long ... and I don't believe the 5 years to SMRs
timescale either.
Probably not, probably very unlikely, but we don't know for sure.
Not as big as the risk of AI or a Nuclear Holocaust, but still significant.
On 30/04/2025 17:22, Pancho wrote:
On 4/30/25 16:46, Andy Burns wrote:And far far less than a super volcano in Yosemite or being hit by a
RJH wrote:
When's the earliest we might see an SMR - 20 years?
Despite what St Greta says, all of humanity won't be burnt to death
if it takes that long ... and I don't believe the 5 years to SMRs
timescale either.
Probably not, probably very unlikely, but we don't know for sure.
Not as big as the risk of AI or a Nuclear Holocaust, but still
significant.
random asteroid
On 30 Apr 2025 at 17:46:39 BST, "The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 30/04/2025 17:22, Pancho wrote:
On 4/30/25 16:46, Andy Burns wrote:random asteroid
RJH wrote:
When's the earliest we might see an SMR - 20 years?
Despite what St Greta says, all of humanity won't be burnt to death if >>>> it takes that long ... and I don't believe the 5 years to SMRs
timescale either.
Probably not, probably very unlikely, but we don't know for sure.
Not as big as the risk of AI or a Nuclear Holocaust, but still significant. >> And far far less than a super volcano in Yosemite or being hit by a
Yellowstone more like.
On 30/04/2025 17:22, Pancho wrote:
On 4/30/25 16:46, Andy Burns wrote:And far far less than a super volcano in Yosemite or being hit by a
RJH wrote:
When's the earliest we might see an SMR - 20 years?
Despite what St Greta says, all of humanity won't be burnt to death if
it takes that long ... and I don't believe the 5 years to SMRs
timescale either.
Probably not, probably very unlikely, but we don't know for sure.
Not as big as the risk of AI or a Nuclear Holocaust, but still significant.
random asteroid
On 4/30/25 17:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/04/2025 17:22, Pancho wrote:
On 4/30/25 16:46, Andy Burns wrote:And far far less than a super volcano in Yosemite or being hit by a
RJH wrote:
When's the earliest we might see an SMR - 20 years?
Despite what St Greta says, all of humanity won't be burnt to death
if it takes that long ... and I don't believe the 5 years to SMRs
timescale either.
Probably not, probably very unlikely, but we don't know for sure.
Not as big as the risk of AI or a Nuclear Holocaust, but still
significant.
random asteroid
No. I don't think so. We know the risk of a killer asteroid is very
small. Super volcanos the risk is significant, but they are more
constrained in extent.
On 30/04/2025 14:44, Tim Streater wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 at 14:20:29 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:No. He is *genuinely* ignorant of the true facts.
Yes, that's all well and good, but the fact remains that we don't. When's the
earliest we might see an SMR - 20 years?
Now you're being absurd.
Here's a quote
"The Rolls-Royce SMR has successfully completed Step Two of the GDA
which confirms Rolls-Royce SMR’s position as the leading SMR vendor in Europe and the technology that is the furthest through any regulatory assessment process anywhere in Europe.
Step 3 is currently underway, with an estimated completion date of
December 2026. Once the GDA is complete, construction of the SMR could
begin, potentially leading to a first-of-a-fleet (FOAF) unit being
deployed in the early 2030s"
On 30 Apr 2025 at 16:03:24 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/04/2025 14:44, Tim Streater wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 at 14:20:29 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:No. He is *genuinely* ignorant of the true facts.
Yes, that's all well and good, but the fact remains that we don't. When's the
earliest we might see an SMR - 20 years?
Now you're being absurd.
Here's a quote
"The Rolls-Royce SMR has successfully completed Step Two of the GDA
which confirms Rolls-Royce SMR’s position as the leading SMR vendor in
Europe and the technology that is the furthest through any regulatory
assessment process anywhere in Europe.
Step 3 is currently underway, with an estimated completion date of
December 2026. Once the GDA is complete, construction of the SMR could
begin, potentially leading to a first-of-a-fleet (FOAF) unit being
deployed in the early 2030s"
Well yes, they would say that. I can't see the fossil fuels lobby giving in that easily. 2040 at the earliest for a significant rollout my guess.
Presumably when this started to happen, power flows from France stepped up until they were on the point of overloaqding the available links, so those tripped, isolating the spanish and portugese grids and a little bit of
France as well.
And they crashed in sympathy.
What seems to have happened here is that the whole Spanish grid was
saturated with renewables and there was nothing left to support the
frequency even after France had disconnected them from the European grids
and their ability to stabilise the frequency was zilch because they had no spinning reserves at all. And not nearly enough battery backup either
Spain has demonstrated the imbecility of an all
renewable grid,
On 30/04/2025 17:55, Pancho wrote:
On 4/30/25 17:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Not really.
On 30/04/2025 17:22, Pancho wrote:
On 4/30/25 16:46, Andy Burns wrote:And far far less than a super volcano in Yosemite or being hit by a
RJH wrote:
When's the earliest we might see an SMR - 20 years?
Despite what St Greta says, all of humanity won't be burnt to death
if it takes that long ... and I don't believe the 5 years to SMRs
timescale either.
Probably not, probably very unlikely, but we don't know for sure.
Not as big as the risk of AI or a Nuclear Holocaust, but still
significant.
random asteroid
No. I don't think so. We know the risk of a killer asteroid is very
small. Super volcanos the risk is significant, but they are more
constrained in extent.
The Siberian Traps extinguished nearly all life on earth for years. If Yosemite goes up, the Western USA is simply gone. And it will be a 10°C
drop worldwide for a decade or more.
Beforehand Spain seemed to be exporting 1GW to France, 3.5GW to Portugal.
The French connector starts in Catalonia, probably close to the 3
nuclear stations that were running at about 1Gw each, but shut down
within 5 seconds of whatever the initial event was. Unlikely that South
West France had any generation capacity available immediately to send to Spain.
Andy Burns wrote:
RR says it would take about 3 years from regulatory approval to on line.I don't believe the 5 years to SMRstimescale either.
Its entirely in the hands of the Office of Nuclear Regulation.
I don't think we can quantify the chance of catastrophic global warming
at under 0,1% in the next century. We also know global warming will
likely have expensive negative effects, even if overall that is just
warming a few degrees.
Mitigation, such as rushing the introduction of nuclear and developing
solar (where appropriate) are relatively cheap. Something we really
should have been doing economically to mitigate carbon fuel prices. Like
the French did in the 1980s, but maybe they did it earlier than necessary.
On 4/30/25 20:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Spain has demonstrated the imbecility of an all
renewable grid,
No, it hasn't, any more than the Tay Bridge disaster demonstrated the >imbecility of building railway bridges. New technology has teething
problems, we have no particular reason to believe this is anything more.
That is, if it is renewable related at all.
(i). The is no sufficient balance possible. It is entirely likely that
at any given point all wind and solar will be off the grid, and equally
as bad, a time when there will be nothing *but* wind and solar ON the grid.
(ii) So long as wind and solar are so heavily subsidised and insulated financially from the consequences of their deployment, there will be no incentives to build nuclear power or indeed any fossil backup at all.
(iii) Once you build nuclear power, there is no credible argument left
*at all* for *any* intermittent renewables. Guess why the renewable
lobby is doing everything it can to stop it.
(iv) We already have uber cheap and safe storage. In the form of gas,
coal oil and uranium.
(v) We can do the sums with batteries and realise they never are going
to work, in the same way that while you can fly a toy plane made of
tissue and balsa wood on twisted rubber bands for a few minutes, there
is no way it's going to take an airliner across the Atlantic.
There is only one sane solution with already known technology to zero
carbon generation
100% nuclear power with a bit of hydro and a bit of interconnection
The real question is how long the renewable lobby can maintain the
fiction that there are others.
There is one place where solar can help.
Spain needs a lot of aircon, which produces a load on the grid just when solar is working.
A little solar to hit that daytime peak could help.
As has been discussed, the main problems are excessive regulation. We
know radiation is dangerous, but electricity is dangerous too.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 15:08:51 +0100, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
As has been discussed, the main problems are excessive regulation.
We know radiation is dangerous, but electricity is dangerous too.
And, as well, the lack of electricity is extremely dangerous.
Joe wrote:
If anyone still cares, now it's all working again
They waited until 24h after the power came back on to start spooling up
their nukes, still only putting out 1GW
On Thu, 01 May 2025 18:10:30 GMT
nospam@please.invalid (AnthonyL) wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 15:08:51 +0100, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
As has been discussed, the main problems are excessive regulation.
We know radiation is dangerous, but electricity is dangerous too.
And, as well, the lack of electricity is extremely dangerous.
If anyone still cares, now it's all working again, this chap seems to
know what he's talking about:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/01/power-engineer-iberia-grid-collapse-renewables-green/
On 01/05/2025 20:34, Andy Burns wrote:
Joe wrote:
If anyone still cares, now it's all working again
They waited until 24h after the power came back on to start spooling
up their nukes, still only putting out 1GW
What do you do with 1GW if the grid is shut down?
If anyone still cares, now it's all working again
On Thu, 01 May 2025 18:10:30 GMT
nospam@please.invalid (AnthonyL) wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 15:08:51 +0100, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
As has been discussed, the main problems are excessive regulation.
We know radiation is dangerous, but electricity is dangerous too.
And, as well, the lack of electricity is extremely dangerous.
If anyone still cares, now it's all working again, this chap seems to
know what he's talking about:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/01/power-engineer-iberia-grid-collapse-renewables-green/
In article <vuv4ck$20r24$2@dont-email.me>, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> scribeth thus
On 4/30/25 20:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Spain has demonstrated the imbecility of an all
renewable grid,
No, it hasn't, any more than the Tay Bridge disaster demonstrated the
imbecility of building railway bridges. New technology has teething
problems, we have no particular reason to believe this is anything more.
That is, if it is renewable related at all.
Some Spanish engineer said earlier that what happened there, lack of
spinning generation stability will happen in the UK!..
"Joe" <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/01/power-engineer-iberia-grid-collapse-renewables-green/
Can only read this by farting about.
Tim Streater wrote:
"Joe" <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/01/power-engineer-iberia- grid-collapse-renewables-green/
Can only read this by farting about.
There does seem to be a trend towards more aggressive "consent-or-pay"
cookie settings.
I find switching to Firefox's reader mode, then refreshing the page
works (Chrome's reading mode and Edge's immersive mode are less useful)
Tim Streater wrote:
"Joe" <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/01/power-engineer-iberia-grid-collapse-renewables-green/
Can only read this by farting about.
There does seem to be a trend towards more aggressive "consent-or-pay"
cookie settings.
I find switching to Firefox's reader mode, then refreshing the page
works (Chrome's reading mode and Edge's immersive mode are less useful)
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
I don't think we can quantify the chance of catastrophic global warming
at under 0,1% in the next century. We also know global warming will
likely have expensive negative effects, even if overall that is just
warming a few degrees.
Mitigation, such as rushing the introduction of nuclear and developing
solar (where appropriate) are relatively cheap. Something we really
should have been doing economically to mitigate carbon fuel prices. Like
the French did in the 1980s, but maybe they did it earlier than necessary.
In previous times we have had:
- The Roman Warm Period (RWP)
- The Late Antique Little Ice Age (LALIA)
- The Medieval Warm Period (MWP)
- The Little Ice Age (LIA)
Note at this point that the comparative globally-averaged temperatures of
the RWP, the LALIA, the MWP, and the LIA have never been determined, and as
a result of this it cannot be claimed that these periods did not exist in
the same global sense of the current narrative. If that is true then the current narrative that warming is driven by increases in atmospheric CO2 levels is, at best, not well founded, as some other mechanism must have driven those climate changes of the periods mentioned and cannot be discounted for the current warming.
In article <vuv4ck$20r24$2@dont-email.me>, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> scribeth thus
On 4/30/25 20:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Spain has demonstrated the imbecility of an all
renewable grid,
No, it hasn't, any more than the Tay Bridge disaster demonstrated the
imbecility of building railway bridges. New technology has teething
problems, we have no particular reason to believe this is anything more.
That is, if it is renewable related at all.
Some Spanish engineer said earlier that what happened there, lack of
spinning generation stability will happen in the UK!..
On 01/05/2025 17:24, tony sayer wrote:
In article <vuv4ck$20r24$2@dont-email.me>, PanchoI just came across this report called "Inertia and the Power Grid: A
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> scribeth thus
On 4/30/25 20:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Spain has demonstrated the imbecility of an all
renewable grid,
No, it hasn't, any more than the Tay Bridge disaster demonstrated the
imbecility of building railway bridges. New technology has teething
problems, we have no particular reason to believe this is anything more. >>> That is, if it is renewable related at all.
Some Spanish engineer said earlier that what happened there, lack of
spinning generation stability will happen in the UK!..
Guide Without the Spin" at https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/73856.pdf
One of their conclusions is that:
Replacing conventional generators with inverter-based resources,
including wind, solar, and certain types of energy storage, has two counterbalancing effects. First, these resources decrease the amount of inertia available. But second, these resources can
reduce the amount of inertia actually needed—and thus address the first effect. In combination, this represents a paradigm shift in how we think about providing frequency response.
Vir Campestris wrote:
There is one place where solar can help.
Spain needs a lot of aircon, which produces a load on the grid just
when solar is working.
Yes ...
A little solar to hit that daytime peak could help.
... but their peak is between 21-22h, not around noon.
On 01/05/2025 20:57, GB wrote:
On 01/05/2025 20:34, Andy Burns wrote:
Joe wrote:
If anyone still cares, now it's all working again
They waited until 24h after the power came back on to start spooling
up their nukes, still only putting out 1GW
What do you do with 1GW if the grid is shut down?
I assumed there was some sort of 'poisoning' that they had to allow to
fall away before they could restart at full power?
On 1 May 2025 at 19:43:58 BST, "Joe" <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 May 2025 18:10:30 GMT
nospam@please.invalid (AnthonyL) wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 15:08:51 +0100, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
As has been discussed, the main problems are excessive regulation.
We know radiation is dangerous, but electricity is dangerous too.
And, as well, the lack of electricity is extremely dangerous.
If anyone still cares, now it's all working again, this chap seems to
know what he's talking about:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/01/power-engineer-iberia-grid-collapse-renewables-green/
Can only read this by farting about.
Tim Streater wrote:
"Joe" <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/01/power-engineer-iberia-grid-collapse-renewables-green/
Can only read this by farting about.
There does seem to be a trend towards more aggressive "consent-or-pay"
cookie settings.
I find switching to Firefox's reader mode, then refreshing the page
works (Chrome's reading mode and Edge's immersive mode are less useful)
On 02/05/2025 07:45, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:Chrome works for me if I switch off Javascript.
"Joe" <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/01/power-engineer-iberia-grid-collapse-renewables-green/
Can only read this by farting about.
There does seem to be a trend towards more aggressive "consent-or-pay"
cookie settings.
I find switching to Firefox's reader mode, then refreshing the page
works (Chrome's reading mode and Edge's immersive mode are less useful)
Tim Streater wrote:
"Joe" <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/01/power-engineer-iberia-grid-collapse-renewables-green/
Can only read this by farting about.
There does seem to be a trend towards more aggressive "consent-or-pay"
cookie settings.
I find switching to Firefox's reader mode, then refreshing the page
works (Chrome's reading mode and Edge's immersive mode are less useful)
On 01/05/2025 11:23, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
I don't think we can quantify the chance of catastrophic global warming
at under 0,1% in the next century. We also know global warming will
likely have expensive negative effects, even if overall that is just
warming a few degrees.
Mitigation, such as rushing the introduction of nuclear and developing
solar (where appropriate) are relatively cheap. Something we really
should have been doing economically to mitigate carbon fuel prices. Like >>> the French did in the 1980s, but maybe they did it earlier than necessary.
In previous times we have had:
- The Roman Warm Period (RWP)
- The Late Antique Little Ice Age (LALIA)
- The Medieval Warm Period (MWP)
- The Little Ice Age (LIA)
Add in the Holocene optimum and the Younger Dryas [frighteningly sharp
global cooling and recovery] as well
<snip good stuff>
...
Note at this point that the comparative globally-averaged temperatures of
the RWP, the LALIA, the MWP, and the LIA have never been determined, and as >> a result of this it cannot be claimed that these periods did not exist in
the same global sense of the current narrative. If that is true then the
current narrative that warming is driven by increases in atmospheric CO2
levels is, at best, not well founded, as some other mechanism must have
driven those climate changes of the periods mentioned and cannot be
discounted for the current warming.
Worse, it means that one of these unexplained 'causes' could come along
now and plunge into an ice age in a decade.
Modern climate change is an irrational position taken up by people with
a little learning who feel they ought to be in charge of telling other
people how to live, and those who are using them to profit at the
taxpayers expense.
What they don't realise is that they are the people who brought
communism to Russia whose president immediately sent them to the Gulags
to teach them how to do something useful.
Useful idiots is the phrase in question.
On 01/05/2025 22:37, Clive Page wrote:
On 01/05/2025 17:24, tony sayer wrote:Utter bollocks. No way do they 'reduce the amount of inertia actually
In article <vuv4ck$20r24$2@dont-email.me>, PanchoI just came across this report called "Inertia and the Power Grid: A
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> scribeth thus
On 4/30/25 20:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Spain has demonstrated the imbecility of an all
renewable grid,
No, it hasn't, any more than the Tay Bridge disaster demonstrated the
imbecility of building railway bridges. New technology has teething
problems, we have no particular reason to believe this is anything
more.
That is, if it is renewable related at all.
Some Spanish engineer said earlier that what happened there, lack of
spinning generation stability will happen in the UK!..
Guide Without the Spin" at https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/73856.pdf
One of their conclusions is that:
Replacing conventional generators with inverter-based resources,
including wind, solar, and certain types of energy storage, has two
counterbalancing effects. First, these resources decrease the amount
of inertia available. But second, these resources can
reduce the amount of inertia actually needed—and thus address the first
effect. In combination, this represents a paradigm shift in how we
think about providing frequency response.
needed'
When the flag drops the bullshit stops.
In Spain, the flag just dropped
Now, it seems to me that lithium batteries are good for more power
delivered in an instant. It seems obvious, a modern grid should be provisioned with enough batteries to achieve this. It is a uk.d-i-y
poster favourite to point out batteries are unsuitable for long term
storage, but they should be suitable for smoothing short term fluctuation.
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Now, it seems to me that lithium batteries are good for more power
delivered in an instant. It seems obvious, a modern grid should be
provisioned with enough batteries to achieve this. It is a uk.d-i-y
poster favourite to point out batteries are unsuitable for long term
storage, but they should be suitable for smoothing short term fluctuation.
You don’t seem to realise that the problems lie with the (inertia-less) inverters. Battery storage requires inverters.
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Now, it seems to me that lithium batteries are good for more power
delivered in an instant. It seems obvious, a modern grid should be
provisioned with enough batteries to achieve this. It is a uk.d-i-y
poster favourite to point out batteries are unsuitable for long term
storage, but they should be suitable for smoothing short term fluctuation.
You don’t seem to realise that the problems lie with the (inertia-less) inverters. Battery storage requires inverters.
On 5/2/25 11:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/05/2025 22:37, Clive Page wrote:
On 01/05/2025 17:24, tony sayer wrote:Utter bollocks. No way do they 'reduce the amount of inertia actually
I just came across this report called "Inertia and the Power Grid: A
Some Spanish engineer said earlier that what happened there, lack of
spinning generation stability will happen in the UK!..
Guide Without the Spin" at https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/73856.pdf
One of their conclusions is that:
Replacing conventional generators with inverter-based resources,
including wind, solar, and certain types of energy storage, has two
counterbalancing effects. First, these resources decrease the amount of
inertia available. But second, these resources can
reduce the amount of inertia actually needed—and thus address the first >>> effect. In combination, this represents a paradigm shift in how we think >>> about providing frequency response.
needed'
Perhaps, you could explain what inertia means in this context. All I can
find is that turbine generators have angular momentum and hence inertia.
This could have two implications. Firstly, changes in power are gradual.
They don't just switch off like a light switch. Secondly, it could mean
they act like a battery, you can trade some of the angular momentum for
more power, almost instantaneously. I'm not sure which people are referring to.
Now, it seems to me that lithium batteries are good for more power
delivered in an instant. It seems obvious, a modern grid should be provisioned with enough batteries to achieve this. It is a uk.d-i-y poster favourite to point out batteries are unsuitable for long term storage, but they should be suitable for smoothing short term fluctuation.
So potentially this sounds like poor grid management, rather than an
inherent problem with solar.
On 5/2/25 14:03, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Now, it seems to me that lithium batteries are good for more power
delivered in an instant. It seems obvious, a modern grid should be
provisioned with enough batteries to achieve this. It is a uk.d-i-y
poster favourite to point out batteries are unsuitable for long term
storage, but they should be suitable for smoothing short term fluctuation.
You don’t seem to realise that the problems lie with the (inertia-less)
inverters. Battery storage requires inverters.
Yes, I don't understand. Which is why I'm asking. Do you understand,
could you explain.
What is the problem with inverters, explicitly?
The trouble with panics, and journalists, is that people pick up on
buzzwords and bandy them around, without understanding what they mean.
That is one alternative mentioned, with no examples of use; maybe Musky's 100MW battery in OZ is not doing that. Another example is keeping the last few % of wind turbines as reserve (Canada); or have some large cold storage units with instant load shedding (Texas).
On 5/2/25 14:03, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Now, it seems to me that lithium batteries are good for more power
delivered in an instant. It seems obvious, a modern grid should be
provisioned with enough batteries to achieve this. It is a uk.d-i-y
poster favourite to point out batteries are unsuitable for long term
storage, but they should be suitable for smoothing short term
fluctuation.
You don’t seem to realise that the problems lie with the (inertia-less)
inverters. Battery storage requires inverters.
Yes, I don't understand. Which is why I'm asking. Do you understand,
could you explain.
What is the problem with inverters, explicitly?
The trouble with panics, and journalists, is that people pick up on
buzzwords and bandy them around, without understanding what they mean.
Perhaps, you could explain what inertia means in this context. All I
can find is that turbine generators have angular momentum and hence
inertia. This could have two implications. Firstly, changes in power
are gradual. They don't just switch off like a light switch.
Secondly, it could mean they act like a battery, you can trade some
of the angular momentum for more power, almost instantaneously. I'm
not sure which people are referring to.
On 30 Apr 2025 at 14:20:29 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
Yes, that's all well and good, but the fact remains that we don't. When's the
earliest we might see an SMR - 20 years?
Now you're being absurd.
On 18:28 29 Apr 2025, Paul said:
On Tue, 4/29/2025 7:19 AM, brian wrote:
In message <09av0kdghfkgldkbke0fp353oulueocgas@4ax.com>, Graham.
<usenet@yopmail.com> writes
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least
not in the context of power transmission.
Power lines are huge long L-C networks. If there is a disturbance
you can get damped oscillations in voltage which is Bad News. The
sense circuitry then disconnects the generators and the HV lines .
It's a b@@er to get it all started up again.
<Https://jkempenergy.com/2025/04/28/iberian-peninsula-
hit-by-mass-blackou t-and-attempts-black-start/>
I've still no idea what caused it in the first place, but it looks
like the use of wind and solar makes it more susceptible. The UK
grid has synchronous machines that store energy to try to stop this,
<https://www.statkraft.co.uk/newsroom/2023/grid-services-
innovative-solut ions-to-stabilise-the-power-grid/>
Fun eh ?
Brian
There is a claim they lost 15 GW of generation, in a matter of a
couple seconds.
They now have to backtrack, check the waveforms, and see why those
facilities kicked out.
I suspect at this point, these "single data point" observations
will have to wait, until all the "items" are aligned to figure
out the trigger. The 15 GW of generation, could drop out on the
frequency stability boundary 0.15 being hit. Something generated
the event, and the transient on the HV facility could be
the "result" of something else tripping, and not the cause.
It can take quite a while, to do a good job on the analysis.
It also depends on enough instrumentation being available,
and if you have a shitload of renewables, what are the odds all
of those have atomic clocks and loggers.
Paul
A Spanish spokeman said it would take several months to determine the
cause but I suspect that is mainly because angry members of the public wanting an explanation will have calmed down by then.
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 12:32, N_Cook wrote:
On 28/04/2025 17:16, Graham. wrote:
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.
Does Spain have 'smart' meters? A sudden national demand drop at 12:30 >>> from 27GW to 15GW could be the likes of Putin's codesmiths remotely
commanding millions of such meters to disconnect from the supply, all at >>> the same time
Having a house in Spain there are a few differences between there and
the UK which seem relevant. Nearly every one has a smart meter. They are
legally required. You pay for it as at a daily rate which is itemised on
the bill. My last bill says @ 0.026630 Eur/day.
Second, your standing charge depends on your maximum permitted load. I
Mine is 5.75kw charged at 0.117456 Eur/Kw/Day.. Exceed this and your
smart meter will cut your power. You have to switch off the main switch
to reset it.
Lastly, nearly every one has time dependant tariffs, either three level
or "by-the-hour". I wonder if this last one caused a surge in demand as
the rate switched....
Dave
All sounds pretty sensible. I wonder if they have as much an issue with
crap smart meter comms as we seem to have?
Tim
On 02/05/2025 14:11, Pancho wrote:
On 5/2/25 14:03, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Now, it seems to me that lithium batteries are good for more power
delivered in an instant. It seems obvious, a modern grid should be
provisioned with enough batteries to achieve this. It is a
uk.d-i-y poster favourite to point out batteries are unsuitable
for long term storage, but they should be suitable for smoothing
short term fluctuation.
You don’t seem to realise that the problems lie with the
(inertia-less) inverters. Battery storage requires inverters.
Yes, I don't understand. Which is why I'm asking. Do you
understand, could you explain.
What is the problem with inverters, explicitly?
The trouble with panics, and journalists, is that people pick up on buzzwords and bandy them around, without understanding what they
mean.
Yes, I don't understand either. With rotational generators if the
load increases beyond what the generator can supply then it rotates
more slowly, i.e. the frequency drops. The managers can monitor
this and try to provide more generational capacity or in emergency
shed load.
But with DC interconnectors, wind, solar cells, or batteries, all of
which need an inverter, there is no need for the frequency to drop
and indeed the electronics should keep it stable. If the load is too
great then the voltage will drop. That's exactly what happens to the
solar cells on my roof, and when it drops too much they stop feeding
my solar power back to the grid. So on a national level if that
happens then the system might produce "brown outs" but I don't see
any reason for grid instability or indeed frequency changes. So I'd appreciate an explanation from an expert.
I also don't believe that inverters would change frequency under
varying loads
For one of the recent reactors, the paper associated
with the reactor design, was something like 2 million
sheets of paper. Maybe an AI could read that and make
a three line summary ? Hoping...
On 2 May 2025 at 20:36:12 BST, "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
For one of the recent reactors, the paper associated
with the reactor design, was something like 2 million
sheets of paper. Maybe an AI could read that and make
a three line summary ? Hoping...
Precisely why we need type approval. If we have that, then then can be rolled off a production line in the same way that cars are.
On Fri, 2 May 2025 18:48:31 +0100
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
On 02/05/2025 14:11, Pancho wrote:None have come forward so far. The hints we have are of a 0.15Hz drop
But with DC interconnectors, wind, solar cells, or batteries, all of
which need an inverter, there is no need for the frequency to drop
and indeed the electronics should keep it stable. If the load is too
great then the voltage will drop. That's exactly what happens to the
solar cells on my roof, and when it drops too much they stop feeding
my solar power back to the grid. So on a national level if that
happens then the system might produce "brown outs" but I don't see
any reason for grid instability or indeed frequency changes. So I'd
appreciate an explanation from an expert.
in frequency triggering the shutdown, and two power plants in
south-west Spain either going completely offline or with greatly
reduced outputs, believed to be solar generators.
I also don't believe that inverters would change frequency under
varying loads, so my very wild guess is that the loss of the two plants overloaded the small number of non-renewable generators in the local
area, which were the source of the frequency shift. The rest is
dominoes...
On 30 Apr 2025 at 16:03:24 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/04/2025 14:44, Tim Streater wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 at 14:20:29 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:No. He is *genuinely* ignorant of the true facts.
Yes, that's all well and good, but the fact remains that we don't. When's the
earliest we might see an SMR - 20 years?
Now you're being absurd.
Here's a quote
"The Rolls-Royce SMR has successfully completed Step Two of the GDA
which confirms Rolls-Royce SMR’s position as the leading SMR vendor in
Europe and the technology that is the furthest through any regulatory
assessment process anywhere in Europe.
Step 3 is currently underway, with an estimated completion date of
December 2026. Once the GDA is complete, construction of the SMR could
begin, potentially leading to a first-of-a-fleet (FOAF) unit being
deployed in the early 2030s"
Well yes, they would say that. I can't see the fossil fuels lobby giving in that easily. 2040 at the earliest for a significant rollout my guess.
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 5/2/25 14:03, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Now, it seems to me that lithium batteries are good for more power
delivered in an instant. It seems obvious, a modern grid should be
provisioned with enough batteries to achieve this. It is a uk.d-i-y
poster favourite to point out batteries are unsuitable for long term
storage, but they should be suitable for smoothing short term fluctuation.
You don’t seem to realise that the problems lie with the (inertia-less) >>> inverters. Battery storage requires inverters.
Yes, I don't understand. Which is why I'm asking. Do you understand,
could you explain.
What is the problem with inverters, explicitly?
The problem with inverters is that they have no inertia.
If there is a sudden fluctuation in the grid frequency that goes outside
the set operating range, the inverter will protect itself and the grid from what it sees as a fault condition by disconnecting. This makes the problem worse because as the energy supply is reduced, the grid frequency will fall too, tripping other inverters. Under these conditions a battery storage facility won’t even start up. This type of grid is inherently unstable.
But the spinning turbines of the <normal> generators have by comparison a huge amount of inertia; if the grid frequency drops on the timescales that trip inverters, the spinning turbines will just carry on as if nothing has happened, putting energy into the grid at an unchanged frequency. This kind of grid is inherently stable.
The Spanish were running on 78% renewables, when an unspecified event
started the inverters tripping out, so that suggests an upper limit for the proportion of renewables on a grid.
The trouble with panics, and journalists, is that people pick up on
buzzwords and bandy them around, without understanding what they mean.
C’est la vie, say the old folks.
On 5/2/25 11:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Exactly
On 01/05/2025 22:37, Clive Page wrote:
On 01/05/2025 17:24, tony sayer wrote:Utter bollocks. No way do they 'reduce the amount of inertia actually
In article <vuv4ck$20r24$2@dont-email.me>, PanchoI just came across this report called "Inertia and the Power Grid: A
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> scribeth thus
On 4/30/25 20:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Spain has demonstrated the imbecility of an all
renewable grid,
No, it hasn't, any more than the Tay Bridge disaster demonstrated the >>>>> imbecility of building railway bridges. New technology has teething
problems, we have no particular reason to believe this is anything
more.
That is, if it is renewable related at all.
Some Spanish engineer said earlier that what happened there, lack of
spinning generation stability will happen in the UK!..
Guide Without the Spin" at https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/73856.pdf
One of their conclusions is that:
Replacing conventional generators with inverter-based resources,
including wind, solar, and certain types of energy storage, has two
counterbalancing effects. First, these resources decrease the amount
of inertia available. But second, these resources can
reduce the amount of inertia actually needed—and thus address the first >>> effect. In combination, this represents a paradigm shift in how we
think about providing frequency response.
needed'
Perhaps, you could explain what inertia means in this context. All I can
find is that turbine generators have angular momentum and hence inertia.
This could have two implications. Firstly, changes in power are gradual.
They don't just switch off like a light switch. Secondly, it could mean
they act like a battery, you can trade some of the angular momentum for
more power, almost instantaneously. I'm not sure which people are
referring to.
Now, it seems to me that lithium batteries are good for more power
delivered in an instant. It seems obvious, a modern grid should be provisioned with enough batteries to achieve this.
It is a uk.d-i-y
poster favourite to point out batteries are unsuitable for long term
storage, but they should be suitable for smoothing short term fluctuation.
So potentially this sounds like poor grid management, rather than an
inherent problem with solar.
FWIW. I remember my Dad talking about the goal of nuclear electrical generation without steam turbines, I'm not sure now what he meant, as he
died when I was in my mid-teens. So it isn't necessarily just renewables
that introduce problems. We shouldn't be Luddites, just because you
don't like the dislike the renewable political bullshit.
When the flag drops the bullshit stops.
In Spain, the flag just dropped
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Now, it seems to me that lithium batteries are good for more power
delivered in an instant. It seems obvious, a modern grid should be
provisioned with enough batteries to achieve this. It is a uk.d-i-y
poster favourite to point out batteries are unsuitable for long term
storage, but they should be suitable for smoothing short term fluctuation.
You don’t seem to realise that the problems lie with the (inertia-less) inverters. Battery storage requires inverters.
On 5/2/25 14:03, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Now, it seems to me that lithium batteries are good for more power
delivered in an instant. It seems obvious, a modern grid should be
provisioned with enough batteries to achieve this. It is a uk.d-i-y
poster favourite to point out batteries are unsuitable for long term
storage, but they should be suitable for smoothing short term
fluctuation.
You don’t seem to realise that the problems lie with the (inertia-less)
inverters. Battery storage requires inverters.
Yes, I don't understand. Which is why I'm asking. Do you understand,
could you explain.
What is the problem with inverters, explicitly?
The trouble with panics, and journalists, is that people pick up on
buzzwords and bandy them around, without understanding what they mean.
On 02/05/2025 14:11, Pancho wrote:
On 5/2/25 14:03, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Now, it seems to me that lithium batteries are good for more power
delivered in an instant. It seems obvious, a modern grid should be
provisioned with enough batteries to achieve this. It is a uk.d-i-y
poster favourite to point out batteries are unsuitable for long term
storage, but they should be suitable for smoothing short term
fluctuation.
You don’t seem to realise that the problems lie with the (inertia-less) >>> inverters. Battery storage requires inverters.
Yes, I don't understand. Which is why I'm asking. Do you understand,
could you explain.
What is the problem with inverters, explicitly?
The trouble with panics, and journalists, is that people pick up on
buzzwords and bandy them around, without understanding what they mean.
Yes, I don't understand either. With rotational generators if the load increases beyond what the generator can supply then it rotates more
slowly, i.e. the frequency drops. The managers can monitor this and
try to provide more generational capacity or in emergency shed load.
But with DC interconnectors, wind, solar cells, or batteries, all of
which need an inverter, there is no need for the frequency to drop and
indeed the electronics should keep it stable.
If the load is too great
then the voltage will drop. That's exactly what happens to the solar
cells on my roof, and when it drops too much they stop feeding my solar
power back to the grid. So on a national level if that happens then
the system might produce "brown outs" but I don't see any reason for
grid instability or indeed frequency changes. So I'd appreciate an explanation from an expert.
None have come forward so far. The hints we have are of a 0.15Hz drop
in frequency triggering the shutdown, and two power plants in
south-west Spain either going completely offline or with greatly
reduced outputs, believed to be solar generators.
I also don't believe that inverters would change frequency under
varying loads, so my very wild guess is that the loss of the two plants overloaded the small number of non-renewable generators in the local
area, which were the source of the frequency shift. The rest is
dominoes...
The problem is that these days, any solution which takes time to reveal
is likely to have been fabricated, particularly about a politically
sensitive issue, so I'd guess we won't know the real answer until a whistleblower comes forward in a year or two.
On 02/05/2025 14:03, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Now, it seems to me that lithium batteries are good for more powerYou don’t seem to realise that the problems lie with the (inertia-less)
delivered in an instant. It seems obvious, a modern grid should be
provisioned with enough batteries to achieve this. It is a uk.d-i-y
poster favourite to point out batteries are unsuitable for long term
storage, but they should be suitable for smoothing short term fluctuation. >>
inverters. Battery storage requires inverters.
That isn't in fact correct. Heaven forfend that I should defend
renewable energy but the issue is that as the frequency drops, no
renewable source can deliver more power automatically. There just isn't
any to be had so the grid will drop frequency in an instant by a huge
amount.
The batteries are able by careful design to add short term power ,
because they can deliver power up to the maximum capacity of the
batteries available.
And so does spinning mass on the grid.
This very short term storage is *inherent* to generator designs that use turbines and alternators - all steam, and gas plant and hydro.
It is absent from wind and solar. Not because they use inverters, but because they have no inherent energy storage. Even the windmill rotors
which should have, don't because back feeding massive power fluctuations
into the moving parts would destroy the gearboxes in short order.
The same arguments is there for HVDC links. There is very little
inherent storage in the cable's capacitance, although when I visited the countries first HVDC plant the engineer boasted that 'we can draw an arc
for 20 minutes off the cable capacitance after we switch it off'
You could solve the problem using e.g, rotary inverters. At greater cost.
I took a flight years ago from Farnborough in an Elizabethan because my friends dad was a boffin in the Decca radar company, The aircraft was
crammed full of electronics and an enormous lump of what looked like an electric motor .
'What's that?' I asked. "Rotary inverter" said the flight engineer. "Why rotary, Wouldn't transistors be lighter " He grinned.
"We have 48V batteries on this plane, Except when we pull the gear up,
Then its about 28V, and this was the easiest way to stop all the
electronics needing to be reset"
Its a good thing aeroplanes are designed by EU politicians.
Joe wrote:
I also don't believe that inverters would change frequency under
varying loads
I don't think the inverters generate their own 50Hz "clock" and output
to that, I think they track what they see from the grid, and then have
to output at a fractionally higher voltage than they see as input, in
order to "push" their output onto the grid.
All the while looking out for a specified deviation from nominal 50Hz
and looking for a specified rate of change of frequency, and
disconnecting if either is true.
So all inverters are playing follow-my-leader from each other?
The frequency shift which Andy posted yesterday was between 12:20 and
12:22, so sorted out 10 minutes before the loss of two plants.
However, we don't know how that was corrected, and what action might
have taken place shortly afterwards.
On 2025-05-02 14:03, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Now, it seems to me that lithium batteries are good for more power
delivered in an instant. It seems obvious, a modern grid should be
provisioned with enough batteries to achieve this. It is a uk.d-i-y
poster favourite to point out batteries are unsuitable for long term
storage, but they should be suitable for smoothing short term
fluctuation.
You don’t seem to realise that the problems lie with the (inertia-less)
inverters. Battery storage requires inverters.
But all that inertia does is to allow a small amount of back-driving
using the kinetic energy in the rotating parts? Why can't an inverter do
just the same if it has a local energy store?
Isn't is just a matter of
an inverter with a small amount of available battery storage and
appropriate software? It should be easy to emulate what rotating
hardware does.
On Wed, 4/30/2025 9:44 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 at 14:20:29 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
Yes, that's all well and good, but the fact remains that we don't. When's the
earliest we might see an SMR - 20 years?
Now you're being absurd.
You may think it's funny, but he has a point.
I didn't realize the planning for ours, had
started so long ago. It could be ten
years, until the projected completion date
of 2028. No ground has been broken. No
announcements made. To meet a 2028 date,
while the current date is "mid 2025", you would
think there would be some sort of visible
indication of activity. If it take five years
here, to build a public beach house, they are
not going to hurry to pour a concrete base
for an SMR.
It's nuclear, and it comes with its own bureaucratic hive.
For one of the recent reactors, the paper associated
with the reactor design, was something like 2 million
sheets of paper. Maybe an AI could read that and make
a three line summary ? Hoping...
Paul
On 30/04/2025 19:37, RJH wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 at 16:03:24 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/04/2025 14:44, Tim Streater wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 at 14:20:29 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:No. He is *genuinely* ignorant of the true facts.
Yes, that's all well and good, but the fact remains that we don't.
When's the
earliest we might see an SMR - 20 years?
Now you're being absurd.
Here's a quote
"The Rolls-Royce SMR has successfully completed Step Two of the GDA
which confirms Rolls-Royce SMR’s position as the leading SMR vendor in >>> Europe and the technology that is the furthest through any regulatory
assessment process anywhere in Europe.
Step 3 is currently underway, with an estimated completion date of
December 2026. Once the GDA is complete, construction of the SMR could
begin, potentially leading to a first-of-a-fleet (FOAF) unit being
deployed in the early 2030s"
Well yes, they would say that. I can't see the fossil fuels lobby
giving in
that easily. 2040 at the earliest for a significant rollout my guess.
2040 is about the date when enough wind generators will have failed and
been uneconomic to repair so an alternative would be required. :)
On 02/05/2025 22:34, Tim Streater wrote:
On 2 May 2025 at 20:36:12 BST, "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
For one of the recent reactors, the paper associated
with the reactor design, was something like 2 million
sheets of paper. Maybe an AI could read that and make
a three line summary ? Hoping...
Precisely why we need type approval. If we have that, then then can be
rolled
off a production line in the same way that cars are.
Any recent design approved for the UK would be a Generic Design Approval (HPR1000 in 2022, AP1000 and ABWR 2017, EPR 2012)
Interesting article on inertia at the link below, about a 5-minute read:
<http://watt-logic.com/2017/10/12/inertia/>
I was thinking of the case, like that of the recent Spanish issue, where renewable energy supplied via inverters was dropping out generator by generator due to some initial fluctuations in grid frequency exceeding the operating limits of those inverters.
But a battery storage has under these conditions to supply energy via its inverters, and unless they are designed to start up and supply power to a grid that’s shutting down and off-frequency - and I’m not sure how that could be done - they won’t be much help. But, of course, ICBW.
On 03/05/2025 09:54, Spike wrote:
Interesting article on inertia at the link below, about a 5-minute read:
<http://watt-logic.com/2017/10/12/inertia/>
I love Kathryn. She does all the detailed fact finding and analysis I am simply too old and tired to do myself.
If only politicians would listen to her...
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 5/2/25 14:03, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Now, it seems to me that lithium batteries are good for more power
delivered in an instant. It seems obvious, a modern grid should be
provisioned with enough batteries to achieve this. It is a uk.d-i-y
poster favourite to point out batteries are unsuitable for long term >>>>> storage, but they should be suitable for smoothing short term fluctuation.
You don’t seem to realise that the problems lie with the (inertia-less) >>>> inverters. Battery storage requires inverters.
Yes, I don't understand. Which is why I'm asking. Do you understand,
could you explain.
What is the problem with inverters, explicitly?
The problem with inverters is that they have no inertia.
If there is a sudden fluctuation in the grid frequency that goes outside
the set operating range, the inverter will protect itself and the grid from >> what it sees as a fault condition by disconnecting. This makes the problem >> worse because as the energy supply is reduced, the grid frequency will fall >> too, tripping other inverters. Under these conditions a battery storage
facility won’t even start up. This type of grid is inherently unstable.
But the spinning turbines of the <normal> generators have by comparison a
huge amount of inertia; if the grid frequency drops on the timescales that >> trip inverters, the spinning turbines will just carry on as if nothing has >> happened, putting energy into the grid at an unchanged frequency. This kind >> of grid is inherently stable.
The Spanish were running on 78% renewables, when an unspecified event
started the inverters tripping out, so that suggests an upper limit for the >> proportion of renewables on a grid.
The trouble with panics, and journalists, is that people pick up on
buzzwords and bandy them around, without understanding what they mean.
C’est la vie, say the old folks.
Interesting article on inertia at the link below, about a 5-minute read:
<http://watt-logic.com/2017/10/12/inertia/>
On 5/3/25 09:54, Spike wrote:
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 5/2/25 14:03, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Now, it seems to me that lithium batteries are good for more power >>>>>> delivered in an instant. It seems obvious, a modern grid should be >>>>>> provisioned with enough batteries to achieve this. It is a uk.d-i-y >>>>>> poster favourite to point out batteries are unsuitable for long term >>>>>> storage, but they should be suitable for smoothing short term
fluctuation.
You don’t seem to realise that the problems lie with the
(inertia-less)
inverters. Battery storage requires inverters.
Yes, I don't understand. Which is why I'm asking. Do you understand,
could you explain.
What is the problem with inverters, explicitly?
The problem with inverters is that they have no inertia.
If there is a sudden fluctuation in the grid frequency that goes outside >>> the set operating range, the inverter will protect itself and the
grid from
what it sees as a fault condition by disconnecting. This makes the
problem
worse because as the energy supply is reduced, the grid frequency
will fall
too, tripping other inverters. Under these conditions a battery storage
facility won’t even start up. This type of grid is inherently unstable. >>>
But the spinning turbines of the <normal> generators have by
comparison a
huge amount of inertia; if the grid frequency drops on the timescales
that
trip inverters, the spinning turbines will just carry on as if
nothing has
happened, putting energy into the grid at an unchanged frequency.
This kind
of grid is inherently stable.
The Spanish were running on 78% renewables, when an unspecified event
started the inverters tripping out, so that suggests an upper limit
for the
proportion of renewables on a grid.
The trouble with panics, and journalists, is that people pick up on
buzzwords and bandy them around, without understanding what they mean.
C’est la vie, say the old folks.
Interesting article on inertia at the link below, about a 5-minute read:
<http://watt-logic.com/2017/10/12/inertia/>
Thanks Spike, that is the best thing I've seen so far.
Still confused, but it leads to a bit of an understanding. Seems to be
a standard human nature problem. Previously, change in frequency was naturally resisted by the technology used, so grid operators didn't
think about it much. They didn't measure it, they just flew by the seat
of their pants, and things were kind of OK. It appears they haven't considered the implications of non turbine sources enough (e.g. inverters)
I still don't understand this "Frequency management insight":
"Inertia is distinct from the fast injection of active power after a measurement delay, often referred to as synthetic inertia".
This is actually an example why we need the precautionary principle. If something doesn't go wrong in the environment we are familiar with, we shouldn't just assume it won't go wrong in a different environment. We shouldn't assume things naturally just work. Something we tend to do.
The PhD paper is irritating, introducing equations without explaining
what the variables are. I always think PhD papers should be competent,
but they are written by people little more than children, who have never actually had a professional job. They lack those basic, simple
communication skills we have kicked into us at work. Or at least the
skills kicked into the people who do write papers.
On 01/05/2025 17:55, Andy Burns wrote:
Vir Campestris wrote:
There is one place where solar can help.
Spain needs a lot of aircon, which produces a load on the grid just
when solar is working.
Yes ...
A little solar to hit that daytime peak could help.
... but their peak is between 21-22h, not around noon.
Absolutely.
At noon everyone siestas through the hot afternoon, gets up again for an evening meal and goes back to work using aircon
On 02/05/2025 23:42, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 02/05/2025 22:34, Tim Streater wrote:RR SMR has passed through GDA steps 1 & 2 already...
On 2 May 2025 at 20:36:12 BST, "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
For one of the recent reactors, the paper associated
with the reactor design, was something like 2 million
sheets of paper. Maybe an AI could read that and make
a three line summary ? Hoping...
Precisely why we need type approval. If we have that, then then can be
rolled
off a production line in the same way that cars are.
Any recent design approved for the UK would be a Generic Design Approval >> (HPR1000 in 2022, AP1000 and ABWR 2017, EPR 2012)
On 03/05/2025 11:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/2025 23:42, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 02/05/2025 22:34, Tim Streater wrote:RR SMR has passed through GDA steps 1 & 2 already...
On 2 May 2025 at 20:36:12 BST, "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
For one of the recent reactors, the paper associated
with the reactor design, was something like 2 million
sheets of paper. Maybe an AI could read that and make
a three line summary ? Hoping...
Precisely why we need type approval. If we have that, then then can
be rolled
off a production line in the same way that cars are.
Any recent design approved for the UK would be a Generic Design
Approval
(HPR1000 in 2022, AP1000 and ABWR 2017, EPR 2012)
And Holtec through step 1, with an estimate of £60 million of grant + match funding to get through 1 and 2. https://holtecbritain.com/gda/
On 02/05/2025 11:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/05/2025 17:55, Andy Burns wrote:Ah, obviously I don't know Spain well enough.
Vir Campestris wrote:
There is one place where solar can help.
Spain needs a lot of aircon, which produces a load on the grid just
when solar is working.
Yes ...
A little solar to hit that daytime peak could help.
... but their peak is between 21-22h, not around noon.
Absolutely.
At noon everyone siestas through the hot afternoon, gets up again for
an evening meal and goes back to work using aircon
I'd assumed that the aircon load would be during the hottest part of the
day, which would be in the afternoon. Not after dark.
On 03/05/2025 14:24, Pancho wrote:
On 5/3/25 09:54, Spike wrote:+1.
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 5/2/25 14:03, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Now, it seems to me that lithium batteries are good for more power >>>>>>> delivered in an instant. It seems obvious, a modern grid should be >>>>>>> provisioned with enough batteries to achieve this. It is a uk.d-i-y >>>>>>> poster favourite to point out batteries are unsuitable for long term >>>>>>> storage, but they should be suitable for smoothing short term
fluctuation.
You don’t seem to realise that the problems lie with the (inertia- >>>>>> less)
inverters. Battery storage requires inverters.
Yes, I don't understand. Which is why I'm asking. Do you understand, >>>>> could you explain.
What is the problem with inverters, explicitly?
The problem with inverters is that they have no inertia.
If there is a sudden fluctuation in the grid frequency that goes
outside
the set operating range, the inverter will protect itself and the
grid from
what it sees as a fault condition by disconnecting. This makes the
problem
worse because as the energy supply is reduced, the grid frequency
will fall
too, tripping other inverters. Under these conditions a battery storage >>>> facility won’t even start up. This type of grid is inherently unstable. >>>>
But the spinning turbines of the <normal> generators have by
comparison a
huge amount of inertia; if the grid frequency drops on the
timescales that
trip inverters, the spinning turbines will just carry on as if
nothing has
happened, putting energy into the grid at an unchanged frequency.
This kind
of grid is inherently stable.
The Spanish were running on 78% renewables, when an unspecified event
started the inverters tripping out, so that suggests an upper limit
for the
proportion of renewables on a grid.
The trouble with panics, and journalists, is that people pick up onC’est la vie, say the old folks.
buzzwords and bandy them around, without understanding what they mean. >>>>
Interesting article on inertia at the link below, about a 5-minute read: >>>
<http://watt-logic.com/2017/10/12/inertia/>
Thanks Spike, that is the best thing I've seen so far.
Still confused, but it leads to a bit of an understanding. Seems toWha`t te calculatins and measurements showed is that the energy stored
be a standard human nature problem. Previously, change in frequency
was naturally resisted by the technology used, so grid operators
didn't think about it much. They didn't measure it, they just flew by
the seat of their pants, and things were kind of OK. It appears they
haven't considered the implications of non turbine sources enough
(e.g. inverters)
due to inertia was roughly equivalent to 9 seconds of full grid power.
And that was an issue that caused out of spec operation. Ideally maybe
20 seconds is desirable
With more renewables the constant can be down to 3 seconds. That simply
isn't enough tome to react to a falling frequency
I still don't understand this "Frequency management insight":There is a delay for the injection to happen, and its never as smooth or uniform as simple grid synchronous inertia, I think.
"Inertia is distinct from the fast injection of active power after a
measurement delay, often referred to as synthetic inertia".
This is actually an example why we need the precautionary principle.That isn't the precautionary principle.
If something doesn't go wrong in the environment we are familiar with,
we shouldn't just assume it won't go wrong in a different environment.
We shouldn't assume things naturally just work. Something we tend to do.
That is simple worst case analysis with known probabilities.
The 'precautionary principle' is ideological nonsense that takes no
account of the costs or consequences of prophylactic behaviour.
Precautionary principle:
"Why are you tearing up newspapers and throwing them out of the train window?"
"It keeps the elephants away"
"But there are no elephants!"
"Its amazingly effective isn't it?"
Worst case analysis:
"What level should we stress the airframe to? "
"well as high as is feasible. We don't want the aeroplane falling apart"
"but lets say we stress it to 10g, like a fighter jet. The passenger
will be dead from being thrown about anyway, and the pilots will
probably be unconscious, so what is the point? And it will burn so much fuel because it is so heavy that no one will buy it anyway"
"Ok well what is a reasonable factor that covers all but a one in a
million event?"
"Probably about -2g to + 4g. That is going to cause severe passenger
trauma, but the pilot should be able to get the airframe down"
Etc.
The PhD paper is irritating, introducing equations without explaining
what the variables are. I always think PhD papers should be competent,
but they are written by people little more than children, who have
never actually had a professional job. They lack those basic, simple
communication skills we have kicked into us at work. Or at least the
skills kicked into the people who do write papers.
Ah., you didn't understand it then.
On 5/3/25 19:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
There is a delay for the injection to happen, and its never as smooth
or uniform as simple grid synchronous inertia, I think.
I don't see why. Naively, I would expect that solid state components
should be able to deliver a very quick response, at least equivalent to
the natural/analogue response of a back force in an alternator/fly wheel.
My human nature guess would be no one has bothered to try.
That isn't the precautionary principle.
That is simple worst case analysis with known probabilities.
Well the probabilities are not known, or are not appropriate. Kathryn
Porter mentions they do not even measure grid inertia. However, people
knew the grid was resilient to fluctuations in supply and demand. So
when someone calculates the risk of a solar farm going offline, they did
it in the context of a historically resilient grid with inertia. The
known probabilities they used were wrong, the significant probability in
the context of a renewable dominated grid, with much lower inertia, was unknown.
Precautionary principle:
"Why are you tearing up newspapers and throwing them out of the train
window?"
"It keeps the elephants away"
"But there are no elephants!"
"Its amazingly effective isn't it?"
That example is inappropriate. The principle is about providing proof,
it is not a proof in itself.
In software programming terms, it would be about having a suite of unit tests. Traditionally, the way we developed was to make a code change,
and then test it in the local context we were interested in. It fixed
the problem we were interested in, job done! However, we got bitten by unintended consequences that we weren't clever enough to spot. So as a precaution, we run the whole suite of unit tests.
Worst case analysis:
"What level should we stress the airframe to? "
"well as high as is feasible. We don't want the aeroplane falling apart"
"but lets say we stress it to 10g, like a fighter jet. The passenger
will be dead from being thrown about anyway, and the pilots will
probably be unconscious, so what is the point? And it will burn so
much fuel because it is so heavy that no one will buy it anyway"
"Ok well what is a reasonable factor that covers all but a one in a
million event?"
"Probably about -2g to + 4g. That is going to cause severe passenger
trauma, but the pilot should be able to get the airframe down"
Etc.
Perhaps the precautionary principle is poorly specified. But there is a
human tendency to ignore that our environment is tailored to be safe.
You see it in political terms, when it is just compensating for a
natural human bias.
Ah., you didn't understand it then.
Exactly, I didn't know what some of the terms meant.
With many papers, you can only understand them by reverse engineering
from a full understanding of the implications. But,..If you already
fully understand the issues, there is no point in reading the paper.
You may have noticed that Kathryn also didn't understand all the
concepts, but being a decent fellow, I wouldn't point that out, as it
wasn't core to her description.
Exactly, I didn't know what some of the terms meant.The only one I couldnt get to grips with was I think BUP or somesuch
With many papers, you can only understand them by reverse engineeringWell that's not exactly true. What I liked about it was that it managed
from a full understanding of the implications. But,..If you already
fully understand the issues, there is no point in reading the paper.
to come up with a neat metric for characterising the inertial energy on
the grid compared to the power the grid was delivering, and that has the dimension of time.
On 5/5/25 13:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
ChatGPT did it for me, Torque Mechanical and Torque electrical.Exactly, I didn't know what some of the terms meant.The only one I couldnt get to grips with was I think BUP or somesuch
With many papers, you can only understand them by reverse engineeringWell that's not exactly true. What I liked about it was that it
from a full understanding of the implications. But,..If you already
fully understand the issues, there is no point in reading the paper.
managed to come up with a neat metric for characterising the inertial
energy on the grid compared to the power the grid was delivering, and
that has the dimension of time.
It's just Newton; Force = mass x acceleration etc, in a rotational
context. I'm not an engineer, I'm not familiar with these symbols.
I spent a lot of my career working out what people actually did, in
order to develop software to automate it. I was ignorant of their
business, ignorant of their terms. I wasted a lot of time unravelling
the jargon they used to express the most simple concepts. More often
than not, they invented some mystique that they were doing something complicated. Often they didn't actually understand what they were doing,
they just understood the jargon bullshit.
So now, I'm a little intolerant when I see people not explain things.
More 1/2 mV^2 actually, Energy. Not momentum
It's just Newton; Force = mass x acceleration etc, in a rotational
context. I'm not an engineer, I'm not familiar with these symbols.
I spent a lot of my career working out what people actually did, inTo someone who doesn't understand, complexity looks and sounds like
order to develop software to automate it. I was ignorant of their
business, ignorant of their terms. I wasted a lot of time unravelling
the jargon they used to express the most simple concepts. More often
than not, they invented some mystique that they were doing something
complicated. Often they didn't actually understand what they were
doing, they just understood the jargon bullshit.
So now, I'm a little intolerant when I see people not explain things.
bullshit
Why does the system need to include renewables?
We know nuclear works. We know it could be done much cheaper, possibly
hugely cheaper.
I see Tony Blair has decided to chip in, saying we should rely on carbon capture and nuclear fusion. Tony is great at aspirational politics, not
so good at pragmatic delivery. 30 years of politicians waiting for some
new technology to turn up, is why we are having problems now.
On 30/04/2025 11:08, Pancho wrote:
Why does the system need to include renewables?
We know nuclear works. We know it could be done much cheaper, possibly
hugely cheaper.
I see Tony Blair has decided to chip in, saying we should rely on
carbon capture and nuclear fusion. Tony is great at aspirational
politics, not so good at pragmatic delivery. 30 years of politicians
waiting for some new technology to turn up, is why we are having
problems now.
+1
On 02/05/2025 23:55, Nick Finnigan wrote:
The frequency shift which Andy posted yesterday was between 12:20 and
12:22, so sorted out 10 minutes before the loss of two plants.
However, we don't know how that was corrected, and what action might have
taken place shortly afterwards.
Its a problem that can be fixed with batteries, at great expense, or by building more thermal plant at way less expense, especially if the
renewables are de-subsidised and taken off the grid.
On 03/05/2025 11:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/2025 23:55, Nick Finnigan wrote:
The frequency shift which Andy posted yesterday was between 12:20 and
12:22, so sorted out 10 minutes before the loss of two plants.
However, we don't know how that was corrected, and what action might
have taken place shortly afterwards.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/what-caused-iberian-power-outage-what-happens-next-2025-06-18/
"While these actions successfully mitigated the oscillation, they also
caused a secondary effect: an increase in voltage, according to the
report."
Its a problem that can be fixed with batteries, at great expense, or
by building more thermal plant at way less expense, especially if the
renewables are de-subsidised and taken off the grid.
"The government report said the number of generators the grid had
available to provide voltage control on April 28 was lower than it had
in previous weeks and that not all units that should have responded did
so as expected."
"The government report said the number of generators the grid hadIn other words. no fucking margin.
available to provide voltage control on April 28 was lower than it had
in previous weeks and that not all units that should have responded
did so as expected."
On 20/06/2025 13:41, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 03/05/2025 11:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/2025 23:55, Nick Finnigan wrote:
The frequency shift which Andy posted yesterday was between 12:20
and 12:22, so sorted out 10 minutes before the loss of two plants.
However, we don't know how that was corrected, and what action
might have taken place shortly afterwards.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/what-caused-iberian-power-outage-what-happens-next-2025-06-18/
"While these actions successfully mitigated the oscillation, they
also caused a secondary effect: an increase in voltage, according
to the report."
Its a problem that can be fixed with batteries, at great expense,
or by building more thermal plant at way less expense, especially
if the renewables are de-subsidised and taken off the grid.
"The government report said the number of generators the grid had available to provide voltage control on April 28 was lower than itIn other words. no fucking margin.
had in previous weeks and that not all units that should have
responded did so as expected."
On 6/20/25 16:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
"The government report said the number of generators the grid hadIn other words. no fucking margin.
available to provide voltage control on April 28 was lower than it had
in previous weeks and that not all units that should have responded did
so as expected."
It sounded waffly enough to let people see what they expected to see. I
think we would really need hard data to understand fully. Or maybe they
will let an expert see the full facts, but from listing to Watt logic
earlier in the year, it sounds like the electricity companies conceal the full data.
On 20/06/2025 19:33, Pancho wrote:
On 6/20/25 16:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
"The government report said the number of generators the grid hadIn other words. no fucking margin.
available to provide voltage control on April 28 was lower than it
had in previous weeks and that not all units that should have
responded did so as expected."
It sounded waffly enough to let people see what they expected to see.
I think we would really need hard data to understand fully. Or maybe
they will let an expert see the full facts, but from listing to Watt
logic earlier in the year, it sounds like the electricity companies
conceal the full data.
https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/consejodeministros/resumenes/ Documents/2025/Informe-no-confidencial-Comite-de-analisis-28A.pdf
is long, redacted and Spanish. Some appears to be translated at:
https://d1n1o4zeyfu21r.cloudfront.net/ WEB_Incident_%2028A_SpanishPeninsularElectricalSystem_18june25.pdf
it sounds like the electricity companies conceal the full data.
<https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/what-caused-iberian-power-outage-what-happens-next-2025-06-18>"solar power, which accounted for 59% of the country's
Nick Finnigan wrote:
<https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/what-caused-iberian-power-"solar power, which accounted for 59% of the country's
outage-what-happens-next-2025-06-18>
electricity at the time of the blackout."
"Had conventional power plants done their job in controlling the
voltage there would have been no blackout"
So as conventional plants are continually reduced to be replaced by renewables, they have to work harder and harder to prop-up the grid?
I still don't understand why renewable generators are unable to control
their output voltage. Even the most rudimentary wall wart will keep its output voltage in spec if the load suddenly drops from maximum to zero.
It's rather sad if the entire network falls over at a time of unusually
*low* load.
Nick Finnigan wrote:
<https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/what-caused-iberian-power-outage-what-happens-next-2025-06-18>"solar power, which accounted for 59% of the country's
electricity at the time of the blackout."
"Had conventional power plants done their job in controlling the
voltage there would have been no blackout"
So as conventional plants are continually reduced to be replaced by renewables, they have to work harder and harder to prop-up the grid?
Nick Finnigan wrote:
<https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/what-caused-iberian-power-outage-what-happens-next-2025-06-18>"solar power, which accounted for 59% of the country's
electricity at the time of the blackout."
"Had conventional power plants done their job in controlling the
voltage there would have been no blackout"
So as conventional plants are continually reduced to be replaced by renewables, they have to work harder and harder to prop-up the grid?
On 6/21/25 10:09, Andy Burns wrote:
Nick Finnigan wrote:
<https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/what-caused-iberian-power-"solar power, which accounted for 59% of the country's
outage-what-happens-next-2025-06-18>
electricity at the time of the blackout."
"Had conventional power plants done their job in controlling the >> voltage there would have been no blackout"
So as conventional plants are continually reduced to be replaced by
renewables, they have to work harder and harder to prop-up the grid?
We don't know.
As others have pointed out, it is perfectly possible to develop nonconventional solutions, to provide synthetic inertia, or whatever the correct term is.
I was listening to a youtube thing on bunker buster bombs and their limitations when faced with defences against them. It made the point politicians don't really care about the truth, they just hear what they
want to hear, "ideals", and don't hear "caveats".
https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/consejodeministros/resumenes/ Documents/2025/Informe-no-confidencial-Comite-de-analisis-28A.pdf
is long, redacted and Spanish. Some appears to be translated at:
https://d1n1o4zeyfu21r.cloudfront.net/ WEB_Incident_%2028A_SpanishPeninsularElectricalSystem_18june25.pdf
On 20/06/2025 20:21, Nick Finnigan wrote:
https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/consejodeministros/resumenes/
Documents/2025/Informe-no-confidencial-Comite-de-analisis-28A.pdf
is long, redacted and Spanish. Some appears to be translated at:
https://d1n1o4zeyfu21r.cloudfront.net/
WEB_Incident_%2028A_SpanishPeninsularElectricalSystem_18june25.pdf
The good news is that my wife speaks fluent Spanish. The bad news is she wouldn't know a reactive load if it bit her, and she doesn't want to
know either, so there's no point in showing it to her.
I know enough to know the title begins "The non-confidential version..."
But I read the English one, which is much shorter too.
They mention the frequency oscillations, which reached 0.6Hz, and state
that it is linked to voltage oscillations.
"During the incident analysis, it was determined that the oscillation
was not natural to the system but rather forced. This oscillation is
observed with significant amplitude at a Photovoltaic Plant located in province of Badajoz (PV Plant A). At the time of the oscillations, the
plant was generating approximately 250 MW. Since the oscillation was
forced, it ceased once the plant stabilizes it."
was an interesting paragraph. And while it's quite clear I don't
understand this high power AC electrical stuff that seems to be the
original trigger.
They've got stuff on there to manage the power factor in their grid -
and it wasn't coping. The frequency began to drop, plants tripped all
over the place, load shedding was going on - and the voltage kept going
_up_!
Andy
On 20/06/2025 19:56, Joe wrote:
I still don't understand why renewable generators are unable to
control their output voltage. Even the most rudimentary wall wart
will keep its output voltage in spec if the load suddenly drops
from maximum to zero. It's rather sad if the entire network falls
over at a time of unusually *low* load.
It is *not a question of controlling the output voltage*. The grid
itself has effectively only one output voltage and frequency. The
generators must be able to call on power reserves to maintain that.
Renewable sources *HAVE NO POWER RESERVES*. It's that simple. So if
the load goes up the frequency and voltage drops FAST. There is no
energy reserve of spinning turbines to maintain it, and if the
frequency goes too low most powerstations will disconnect themselves
to prevent damage. Adding batteries is supposed to prevent that. The batteries have power reserves.
But batteries cost money and we have gas power stations so why waste
money on them ?
And the answer is because greedy renewable operators want to see as
much renewable energy on the grid as possible they force the gas
power stations off it.
And the more renewables energy there is the greater the risk. Low
load and lots of sun...bad news.
Imagine one lorry being pushed along by 500 people. They all have to maintain its speed up hill and downhill. If one person drops off it immediately slows down. Increasing the load on the others. If they
cant push harder they drop off as well.
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 12:57:02 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 20/06/2025 19:56, Joe wrote:
I still don't understand why renewable generators are unable to
control their output voltage. Even the most rudimentary wall wart
will keep its output voltage in spec if the load suddenly drops
from maximum to zero. It's rather sad if the entire network falls
over at a time of unusually *low* load.
It is *not a question of controlling the output voltage*. The grid
itself has effectively only one output voltage and frequency. The
generators must be able to call on power reserves to maintain that.
Renewable sources *HAVE NO POWER RESERVES*. It's that simple. So if
the load goes up the frequency and voltage drops FAST. There is no
energy reserve of spinning turbines to maintain it, and if the
frequency goes too low most powerstations will disconnect themselves
to prevent damage. Adding batteries is supposed to prevent that. The
batteries have power reserves.
But batteries cost money and we have gas power stations so why waste
money on them ?
And the answer is because greedy renewable operators want to see as
much renewable energy on the grid as possible they force the gas
power stations off it.
And the more renewables energy there is the greater the risk. Low
load and lots of sun...bad news.
Imagine one lorry being pushed along by 500 people. They all have to
maintain its speed up hill and downhill. If one person drops off it
immediately slows down. Increasing the load on the others. If they
cant push harder they drop off as well.
Yes. My point was that this particular incident was not caused by insufficient reserve of energy. Nothing was being overloaded, the
system was *underloaded* and was producing an excess of electricity:
"Electricity demand on the morning of April 28 was relatively low,
which contributed to the repeated overvoltage on the country’s
transmission network.
Total demand on Spain’s peninsula network prior to the blackout was
just 25,184 megawatts, well below the historical maximum of 44,876
megawatts.
Weather (temperatures were mild), time of day (noon) and day of the
week (Monday) all contributed to relatively low demand.
But low demand can threaten grid stability because it can cause voltage
to drift above the safe operating limits set by the system."
The latter is understandable with rotating thermal generators, and those
in charge would have acted to shed generating capacity, not load. It is
not understandable with the synthesised AC produced by renewable
generators. Windmills can have the alternator excitation current
reduced or the blade pitch reduced, solar cells can simply be regulated,
and no harm will come to them if their full outputs are not utilised.
The grid voltage should *not* have risen uncontrollably with a low load.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 18:28:46 |
| Calls: | 9,827 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 13,761 |
| Messages: | 6,191,325 |
