Induced atmospheric oscillations.

[Graham.]

https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p

I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.

[Andy Burns]

Post by Graham.
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.

Sounds a bit "AI or web translator doesn't properly understand" ...

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>

[Joe]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 18:03:28 +0100

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Graham.
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.

Sounds a bit "AI or web translator doesn't properly understand" ...

The Telegraph calls it 'Extreme Weather'. Obviously Global Warming to
blame.

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.

Solar PV/thermal + wind: ~78%
Nuclear: 11.5%
Co-generation: 5%
Gas-fired: ~3% (less than 1GW)

Snapshot at 12.30pm local time (outage was 12.35pm)"
pic.twitter.com/fF7FiIB6UD — Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) April 28,
2025

"It's a race against the sunset to restore power in Spain.

In about four hours, Spain will lose ~1/3 of its current
electricity generation (sunset is ~9pm Madrid time).

Spanish national grid is trying to reactivate (black start) as much
spinning generation before that. "— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) April
28, 2025

Post by Andy Burns
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>

"Portugal's grid operator, REN (Rede Eléctrica Nacional), claimed that
the massive power outage affecting Portugal and Spain was sparked by a
"rare atmospheric phenomenon," specifically "extreme temperature
variations" in the Spanish electricity grid. "

Apparently, six days ago, Spain celebrated getting 100% of its
electricity from renewables. I had a feeling that Germany discovered
some time ago that a stable grid could not be maintained with too much
unreliable input.

[Andy Burns]

Post by Joe
"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.

<Loading Image...>

Grabbed from here, but it's a bit intermittent

<https://demanda.ree.es/visiona/peninsula/demandaau/acumulada/2025-4-28>

[Nick Finnigan]

Post by Andy Burns

     "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).

[Andy Burns]

 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.

[Nick Finnigan]

Post by Andy Burns

  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.

Well, that's when 18GW of solar kicks in, and they seems to be exporting
4.5GW

[Andy Burns]

 Well, that's when 18GW of solar kicks in,

They've had less than 1/3 of that so far today, fair enough it's not yet
noon, I've no idea what their weather is doing.

and they seems to be exporting 4.5GW

They *are* doing imports and exports again, but no that much, peak
export today has been under 2GW

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Andy Burns

     "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.

[Joe]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 11:54:43 +0100

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Andy Burns

     "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.

[Joe]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 13:39:04 +0100
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.

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."


Further down the page:

"‘Inferno’ at London substation caused by equipment fault"

and of course we recently had much the same near Heathrow...

[Nick Finnigan]

Post by Joe
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 13:39:04 +0100
"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.

[Tim Streater]

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by Joe
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 13:39:04 +0100
"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?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Tim Streater

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by Joe
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 13:39:04 +0100
"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?

Well the batteries are there to prevent what happened in Spain. To keep
the grid up for a minute or two while overloaded bits are disconnected...

They cant even manage 5 minutes, let alone 5 weeks

[RJH]

Post by Tim Streater

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by Joe
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 13:39:04 +0100
"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.

[Spike]

Post by RJH

Post by Tim Streater
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.

[RJH]

Post by Spike

Post by RJH

Post by Tim Streater
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.

So the system needs to be designed and operated properly.

Post by Spike
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.

[Pancho]

Post by RJH
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.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Pancho

Post by RJH
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 cant say that about either fusion or carbon capture.

By definition if you don't store CO2 *as* CO2, then it will take as much
energy to turn it into something else as you got out of it by burning it
in the first place.
Much better to flood greenhouses with it. And grow tomatoes

[RJH]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Pancho

Post by RJH
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.

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Pancho
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.

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Pancho
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.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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?

[Tim Streater]

Post by RJH
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.

That's why we need SMRs, which would be type-approved. And you'll find that
the decommissioning costs even of the one under construction now are built-in
to the strike price.

[Tim Streater]

Post by RJH
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.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Tim Streater

Post by RJH
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.

No. He is *genuinely* ignorant of the true facts.

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

[tony sayer]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Tim Streater

Post by RJH
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.

No. He is *genuinely* ignorant of the true facts.
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

And no doubt the stupid govermental will go for a foreign SMR ands kick
RR in the nuts:(

The firm that helped the UK out of a bit of bother, in 1940, thats being
marked next week;!..

[RJH]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Tim Streater

Post by RJH
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.

No. He is *genuinely* ignorant of the true facts.
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.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by RJH

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Tim Streater

Post by RJH
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.

No. He is *genuinely* ignorant of the true facts.
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.

I don't think the renewable boondoggle will last that long. People are
questioning Nut Zero, Spain has demonstrated the imbecility of an all
renewable grid, and voters are tired of promises that do nothing except
increase energy prices

If the government had the balls, the SMRs could be operating before
Reform get in.

But I expect it will be Reform who make it happen

[blacky]

On Thu, 01 May 2025 05:17:57 +1000, The Natural Philosopher =

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Tim Streater

Yes, that's all well and good, but the fact remains that we don't.=

=

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Tim Streater

When's the
earliest we might see an SMR - 20 years?

Now you're being absurd.

No. He is *genuinely* ignorant of the true facts.
Here's a quote
"The Rolls-Royce SMR has successfully completed Step Two of the GDA
which confirms Rolls-Royce SMR=E2=80=99s position as the leading SMR=

vendor in

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Europe and the technology that is the furthest through any regulator=

y

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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 cou=

ld

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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.=

I don't think the renewable boondoggle will last that long. People are=

=

questioning Nut Zero,
Spain has demonstrated the imbecility of an all renewable grid,

Spain does not have an all renewable grid

and voters are tired of promises that do nothing except

increase energy prices
If the government had the balls, the SMRs could be operating before =
Reform get in.
But I expect it will be Reform who make it happen

[Pancho]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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.

[Pancho]

Post by RJH

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Pancho

Post by RJH
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.

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Pancho
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.

The French did it, in the 1980s. The Koreans and Chinese do it today.

Decommissioning costs are about 10% of build cost.

As has been discussed, the main problems are excessive regulation. 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.

The French example showed the economic advantage of building the same
design many times. If we accepted nuclear as the solution, we would
benefit from that today. We have perfectly viable designs for nuclear
power stations.

Finally, nuclear plants are long term investments. There is a risk a
cheaper alternative may be developed, and a risk politicians might
arbitrarily ban nuclear. While these risks may put off private
investors, they are exactly the type of risk governments should take.
The risk of doing nothing is worse.

Post by RJH

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Pancho
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.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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?

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.

[Spike]

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.

A silly realism is that under the current regulatory burden, nuclear power
stations cannot be built in Cornwall.

Why is that, you might ask?

Because the natural background radiation dose in Cornwall exceeds that
allowed for nuclear workers.

You couldn’t make it up.

[John R Walliker]

Post by Pancho
As has been discussed, the main problems are excessive regulation. 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.

We already regulate 1.5V batteries. The use of mercury in
the electrodes has been banned which is probably why they leak
much more than they used to.
John

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Pancho
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
large conventional reactors.

Obviously the chief advantage is type approval but
- they are small enough not to need active cooling when scrammed, and
passive cooling is simpler cheaper and has far less to go wrong with it.
Cheaper and safer.
- they can be factory assembled and shipped to site as a preconfigured
unit, saving huge amounts of build time by sub contractors.
- they are small enough to go on any small industrial estate near where
the demand is. Thus saving the cost of massive grid connections.
- unlike large reactors, the loss of a single unit due to unplanned
shutdown is not a huge problem.

The problem with large builds onsite is that no two are the same and
each one needs to be approved. Its not cost effective,.

[Spike]

Post by RJH

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Pancho

Post by RJH
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.

That’s why we need nuclear.

Post by RJH

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Pancho
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.

But if the regulatory burden placed on nuclear was done away with on the
same basis as was done for renewables, costs and timescales would plummet.

Decommissioning costs are built in to the building costs, so amount to no
further burden.

And there’s billions of tons of uranium in the sea, which can be mined
automatically.

Post by RJH

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Pancho
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.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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?

Depends on the overwhelming regulatory burden, the like of which was swept
away for renewables.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by RJH

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Pancho

Post by RJH
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.

It certainly isn't sustainable with 'renewables'

It is with nuclear. Dor at leats ten thousand years. And then we can get
fusion going.

Post by RJH

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Pancho
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.

Yes, in far more detail than you do, because you just listened to the
antinuclear tree hugging climatards who are the reason WHY nuclear is so
expensive.

Post by RJH

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Pancho
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.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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?

5 years. We could see one in two years if government wanted it.
The plan is to be onstream by 2030

[Andy Burns]

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.

[Pancho]

Post by Andy Burns

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.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Pancho

Post by Andy Burns

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
random asteroid

[Pancho]

Post by Pancho

Post by Andy Burns

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
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 Natural Philosopher]

Post by Pancho

Post by Pancho

Post by Andy Burns

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
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.

Not really.

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.

[Pancho]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Pancho

Post by Pancho

Post by Andy Burns

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
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.

Not really.
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.

Siberian Traps was 500 million years ago, not something with a
reasonable probability happening in the next few years. Yellowstone
might have something like 0.1% chance of happening in the next century,
but as you say would have a localised or short term effect. Besides, we
can't do anything about it.

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.

[Tim Streater]

On 30 Apr 2025 at 17:46:39 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Pancho

Post by Andy Burns

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
random asteroid

Yellowstone more like.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Tim Streater
On 30 Apr 2025 at 17:46:39 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Pancho

Post by Andy Burns

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
random asteroid

Yellowstone more like.

That's what I meant

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Andy Burns

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.

Its entirely in the hands of the Office of Nuclear Regulation.

RR says it would take about 3 years from regulatory approval to on line.

But the Officers have been bribed one assumes to drag their feet as much
as possible.

[Andy Burns]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Andy Burns
I don't believe the 5 years to SMRs

timescale either.
Its entirely in the hands of the Office of Nuclear Regulation.

RR says it would take about 3 years from regulatory approval to on line.

It's not so much RR that I see being the slow party ...

[Spike]

Post by RJH

Post by Spike
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.

Why?

Post by RJH
As I say, it needs compromise and balance.

Compromise between what? And balance of what?

Post by RJH
If cheap storage comes along, great.

And if it doesn’t?

Post by RJH
If not, do what you can with
what you've got.

That’s what we were doing for a hundred years, and it worked well.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by RJH

Post by Spike

Post by RJH

Post by Tim Streater
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.

So the system needs to be designed and operated properly.

Bless!

Its sightedness to satisfy EU muppets paid off by German windpower and
solar companies as a maketing sop to the German Greens

That is the realpolitik of energy

Post by RJH

Post by Spike
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.

No, the sytem needs to eradicate renewables altogether.

As I say, it needs compromise and

Post by RJH
balance. If cheap storage comes along, great. If not, do what you can with
what you've got.

No it doesn't need compromise and balance ,. There is no valid argument
whatsoever for any 'renewable' energy on the grid whatsofucking ever. It
isn't cheap it isn't green and it isn't reliable.

We already have cheap storage. U235 an Pu239

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Spike

Post by RJH

Post by Tim Streater
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.

Post by Spike
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.

Absolutely. And hydro., in engineering terms hydro is the best of all
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.

[tony sayer]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Spike

Post by RJH

Post by Tim Streater
Each time I try to price up what it would cost to have enough battery to

cover

Post by Spike

Post by RJH

Post by Tim Streater
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.

Post by Spike
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.

Absolutely. And hydro., in engineering terms hydro is the best of all
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;(..

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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?..

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by tony sayer

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Spike

Post by RJH

Post by Tim Streater
Each time I try to price up what it would cost to have enough battery to

cover

Post by Spike

Post by RJH

Post by Tim Streater
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.

Post by Spike
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.

Absolutely. And hydro., in engineering terms hydro is the best of all
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;(..

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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?..

Yes. Its a bit wet finger, but when I did the calcs I looked at the
total energy flow in the UK and multiplied it in sectors by efficiency
- so transport fuel at 30% efficiency would need 30% as much nuclear
power as diesel or petrol, Heating I went 1:1 even though heatpumps...

As for industrial use hydrocarbons, I just went 1:1. I have no real idea
how much electricity it would take to smelt iron ore, for example. Or
make nitrogen based fertiliser. or Concrete.

I came up with an upper bound for the whole country of around 300GW and
a lower bound of at least 100GW.

That is not an impossible figure.

Given favourable political winds - 400 small modular reactors of about
500MW apiece popped into industrial estates all around major towns would
do nicely.

Ive added costings on here,m because it is intersting

Total capital cost would be around £660 billion. Spread across 20
million households that's about £33k per household. (RR is quoting
£3.3bn per gigawatt)

For essentially free electricity for 60 years? Not a bad deal

If you amortise that over 60 years and put interest rates in its £11bn a
year plus the interest on £660bn - at say 7.5%. that's another £50bn.
Let's round it up to £80bn a year to include fuel and O & M. This is
very wet finger stuff. Notice how heavily impacted the cost is by
interest rates. That's what killed nuclear in the Thatcher era

So £80bn a year for 200GW ...that comes out at 4.5p a unit.

That is the 'barely profitable' cost of nuclear power using SMRs and
paying 7.5% on a 60 year bond.

Which is a return - a gold plated return - the pension funds would love
- and if the government guaranteed not to shut it down, pretty much
gilt edged.

Right now the risks are in uncertain build costs and operating approval,
due to political interference and regulation, The Renewable lobby would
destroy nuclear of they could. And they own the likes of Milliband.

If political tides turn and renewables become unfashionable, the actual
real world numbers make complete sense. There is even meat in there for
full decommissioning, although the more likely prospect is that each new
build of reactors takes place on the site of the old and the gross
profits of the new pays to keep the waste of the old under control and
recycled.

When the anti-nuclear lobby talk about cost of decommissioning the
presumption is that no nuclear will ever be built again. In reality a
vibrant nuclear industry pays for its own cleanup and no nuclear site
would ever need to be 'green fielded' since there would always be a new
reactor built on it.


So ex tax nuclear electricity at around 4.5p a unit, which would equate
to a raw oil cost of say 45p a litre (its about 60p now ex tax) - so
broadly similar for house heating. And gas at 6.6p kWh.

In terms of transport, of course diesel and petrol engines are at best
40% efficient so its actually cheaper to use electric where range isn't
a issue.

Now I haven't included grid costs to go from 50GW capacity to say 200GW.
Because these apply no matter what technology is in use. But of course
nuclear uses the grid far more efficiently., It uses it at or near full
capacity 24x7 which renewables do not.

That's the way things have to go. Once you throw out the windmills and
solar panels - which work out in the 15p-50p cost range - its nuclear
all the way.

Fossil prices will rise as resources run out, but nuclear power should
stay the same in price.

And it can only get cheaper as mass production kicks in.

[Tim Streater]

Post by RJH

Post by Tim Streater

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by Joe
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 13:39:04 +0100
"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.

You astonish me.

Post by RJH
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.

Why do you think cheap storage will come along? Cheaper, perhaps, which is why
I post that provocatively high sum. I'm looking for someone to say that XYZ
chemistry would be cheaper than lithium, and by how much.

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]

Post by Tim Streater
My figure was calculated by taking the largest lithium-based facility I could
find, getting its cost and capacity, and doing some sums. Simples.

Green ArtStudents™ do their technology based on faith that somehow if
enough of someone else's money is spent on it, the right answer will
come along all by itself

They are so ignorant they believe that this is in fact 'how stuff works'.

And there are plenty of people all to willing to take the cash, fiddle
around, and then go out of business having stashed their salaries in
Swiss bank accounts

Renewable energy exists simply because German Greens wouldn't tolerate
nuclear power because the Russians scared them to keep them hooked on
Russian gas, and the German nuclear companies needed something to make a
profit on so they got mama Merkel to pay them to stick windmills and
solar panels up.

Then in order to not become hopelessly uncompetitive, Germany forced the
EU to issue a 'renewable obligation' to make sure everybody else's
electricity was just as expensive.

And until now, they could get away with virtue signalling how fucking
brilliant 'renewable energy' was, lie about its ability to reduce
emissions, lie about its costs, lie about its environmental impacts, and
get away with it.

Now they cant lie any longer about it making the grid so unstable its no
longer fit for purpose.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by RJH
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.

(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.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Joe
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 13:39:04 +0100
"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.

That might have been the trigger, but it wasn't the main charge ....

[Andy Burns]

Post by Joe
"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."

This site does its own local frequency monitoring, a slight lag all day
long but nothing particularly out of the ordinary

<http://81.138.219.45/cgi-bin/plotdayer?date=1745771322&average=y&actual=y&centre=y&grid=y&50hz=y&dist10=y>

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Joe
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 11:54:43 +0100

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Andy Burns

     "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.

+1.

Intermittent renewable energy on a grid introduces positive feedback. If
the frequency drops too far, because there is an overload, the renewable
energy disconnects, thereby increasing the overload.

They couldn't find the positive feedback in climate change, so they
engineered it into renewable energy instead, They just want catastrophes
to justify government control of everything and state funded corporate
wealth

[Andy Burns]

Post by Joe
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&timeslider=1&hour=11&datetimepicker=28.04.2025>

Assuming the work on a similar tolerance to the UK of +/- 1% they were
well within limits.

[Clive Page]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Joe
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&timeslider=1&hour=11&datetimepicker=28.04.2025>
Assuming the work on a similar tolerance to the UK of +/- 1% they were
well within limits.

But there are limits and limits. On 9th Aug 2019 there was a short
power cut in the south-east of England but it turned out that pretty
much all Thameslink trains stopped and could not be restarted. There
was widespread disruption on the entire network for the rest of the day.

The cause was that the UK grid frequency dropped very briefly to 48.8
Hz. The train specification should have allowed them to survive that
but in practice they did not. In an even worse design defect by Messrs
Siemens most of them could not be restarted by the driver and needed a
visit from a technician.

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.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Clive Page
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.

It's called solar farm inverters

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Joe
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&timeslider=1&hour=11&datetimepicker=28.04.2025>
Assuming the work on a similar tolerance to the UK of +/- 1% they were
well within limits.

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

[Andy Burns]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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>

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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>

yeah. Ive been thinking of building a power monitor instead of having a
smart meter and monitoring frequency *every cycle* and uploading any
data that falls outside limits.

The real issue is however how many cycles of bad frequency does a
windfarm or solar farm need to try and disconnect.

I read somewhere that many German factories were having to go DC and
re-generate 50Hz because the grid relaxed its frequency standards to
accommodate GreenCrap™ and the rapid fluctuations stressed their
synchronous AC motors to destruction.

[tony sayer]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Andy Burns

     "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.

Yes quite so the bollocks thats been written by the media amazing ..

Suppose the same will happen here given time!..

[David]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Graham.
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.

Sounds a bit "AI or web translator doesn't properly understand" ...
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>

It is being reported this morning that the inter-connector to France
tripped, and that caused the Spanish and Portuguese grids to trip.

[Andy Burns]

Post by David
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?

<Loading Image...>

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by David
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>

Most likely explanation.
#
ALL the wind and solar is extremely vulnerable to temporary overloads or
loss of capacity. It will simply disconnect itself from a grid that is
no longer 50Hz.
That doesn't make renewables the proximal cause of the problem, but it
does make them completely complicit in the scale of it

Juts as a car ferry fire may not have started with lithium batteries,
but they sure cause d it to be a disaster.

[David]

Post by Graham.
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.

Very strong auroras are known to disrupt power grids, Canada being
nearer the Auroral Circle is very prone to this effect.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by David

Post by Graham.
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.

Very strong auroras are known to disrupt power grids, Canada being
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...

[David]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by David

Post by Graham.
https://ibb.co/Jwqy6R3p
I can't find an authoritative reference to this effect, at least not
in the context of power transmission.

Very strong auroras are known to disrupt power grids, Canada being
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...

it's no doubt the work of a journalist who hasn't got the foggiest idea
about anything technical and just wants to grab a headline.

[Spike]

Post by Graham.
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?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Spike

Post by Graham.
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?

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'

[Spike]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Spike

Post by Graham.
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?

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'

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>

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Spike

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Spike

Post by Graham.
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?

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://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]

Post by Spike

Post by Spike

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Spike

Post by Graham.
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?

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://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

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?...

[Spike]

Post by tony sayer

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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]

On 29 Apr 2025 15:02:54 GMT

Post by Spike

Post by tony sayer

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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…

About a week earlier, Spain had boasted of getting 100% of its power
from renewables. You don't get much more than that.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Spike

Post by tony sayer

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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…

And batteries. And pumped storage, and intercontinental interconnectors.
And and and.

Because no one dares admit the facts. Renewables on the intermittent
kinds are total utter PANTS and should never have been allowed to
connect to any grid anywhere

The auto generated sig seems very appropriate tonight

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by tony sayer

Post by Spike

Post by Spike

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Spike

Post by Graham.
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?

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://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

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.

Wrong way round. If a generators goes offline the frequency drops.

And then the other stuff disconnects itself

Post by tony sayer
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.

[tony sayer]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by tony sayer

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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.

Wrong way round. If a generators goes offline the frequency drops.

Quite, same thing in a way .. like a load comes off line frequency rises
either way its the same end result..

Post by The Natural Philosopher
And then the other stuff disconnects itself

Post by tony sayer
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.

Indeed, nuclear in reality..

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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.

[AnthonyL]

Post by Spike

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Spike

Post by Graham.
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?

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://en.meteorologiaenred.com/What-is-induced-atmospheric-vibration-and-why-has-it-been-key-in-the-great-power-blackout.html>

Just put the cables underground. That will please many who wish to
retain the serenity of the countryside instead of having green agendas
ruin it. What a paradox?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Graham.
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..

[Spike]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Graham.
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..

This looks like an interesting article:

<https://www.itv.com/news/2025-04-28/oscillations-and-vibrations-what-caused-the-power-outage-in-spain-and-portugal>

“The weather in Spain on Monday was calm and sunny with average spring
temperatures.

According to an expert I spoke to, it would be “really really weird” for
this weather to have caused - or 'induced atmospheric vibrations’.”

[brian]

Post by Graham.
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

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by brian

Post by Graham.
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 .

Its not voltage oscillations that cause blackouts, its frequency 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

<...>

Post by brian
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,

It could be a sparrow shitting on an insulator. It doesn't matter what
makes a ball balanced on a pin start to fall off, the fact is that once
it starts, it will inevitably fall.

Post by brian
<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.

Post by brian
Fun eh ?

No, just money and power grabbing dirty little EcoBollox™

Post by brian
Brian

[Pancho]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by brian

Post by Graham.
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 .

Its not voltage oscillations that cause blackouts, its frequency 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.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
<...>

Post by brian
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,

It could be a sparrow shitting on an insulator. It doesn't matter what
makes a ball balanced on a pin start to fall off, the fact is that once
it starts, it will inevitably fall.

Post by brian
<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.

Post by brian
Fun eh ?

No, just money and power grabbing dirty little EcoBollox™

Post by brian
Brian

[Joe]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 08:49:32 +0100

Post by Pancho

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by brian

Post by Graham.
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 .

Its not voltage oscillations that cause blackouts, its frequency 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.

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...

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Joe
"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."

The question left deliberately unsaid is 'how could a couple of solar
starions cause that instability at all in the first place'

We all know the answer to the question that will never be asked...

Post by Joe
As I said, a cloud passing over the Sun...

A butterfly flapping its wings in a Brazilian rain forest.

A house of cards collapses *because someone blew on it*. The solutions
is not to stop people blowing.

It's not to build a house out of cards in the first place...

[Andy Burns]

Post by Pancho
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>

Post by Pancho
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"?

Post by Pancho
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/>

Post by Pancho
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.

I think the mere fact they are calling for "no speculation" guarantees
they know ...

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Pancho
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>

Post by Pancho
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"?

Oh yes. Much more control than you think. Interconnectors are commercial
operations.
At least the ones connecting to the UK arr.
What happens is that a UK company contracts for some French nucler power
and then approaches a link operator to transport it.

The link operators looks at its total booked energy in BOTH directions,
subtracts one from the other and sees if there is spare capacity to sell
to the requester.

If there isn't any, they wont sell it and the requestor will have to go
somewhere else.

What about overload - when a grid starts to draw more than the
interconnector operative has contracted for? Well it simply can charge a
penalty if it can carry it, but if it cant, it must disconnect.


And that adds to the problem.

Every link is potentially able to be disconnected at the discretion of
the grid operators. And that serves to isolate the problem if the
problem is just an overload.

The problem is different, however with renewable energy being supplied
through inverters. Here the issue is not that the total power cant
handle the overload, it is that the invererters will disconnect all
together across the whole grid if a frequency excursions happens.

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.

Post by Pancho
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?

Yes. IIRC Eastern Europe wasn't providing enough and Germany
disconnected them or something

In extremis various parts of the grid can isolate from other parts. No
one wants to do that because cross border flows save money overall.
Power stations can run at or near full load and export surpluses and
import deficiencies and that's cheaper than a new power station that
sits there idle most of the time.

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

'Look mum: No fossils!' followed by CRASH.

<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 and

Post by Pancho
are just figuring out how to assign the blame, for public consumption.

I think the mere fact they are calling for "no speculation" guarantees
they know ...

They think we are fucking stupid.

Just like the twin towers where people were saying 'it looks just like a
controlled demolition, therefore it WAS a controlled demolition'.

In the end it doesn't matter what started it nearly as much as the fact
that a minor glitch could lead to total system failure.

And why a grid was mandated to be built like that in the first place,
all because some tree huggers got a bee in their bonnets in Germany.

It's the usual mixture of greed, fear, ignorance, cynical profiteering
and the EU.

[Nick Finnigan]

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.

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.

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

They do have a reasonable amount of hydro.

[Andy Burns]

Post by Nick Finnigan
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.

Frequency plot as seen from the Spanish and Latvian "ends" of the
European grid in the run-up to the blackout.

<Loading Image...>

OK, so it's not deviating *that* far from 50Hz, but speeding up and
slowing down 6 times per minute must put a huge strain on the system?

Amplitude measured in milliHertz, something lost in translation?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Pancho
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.

Indeed. But in the end an HVDC connector looks pretty much like an
intermittent renewable generator. And adds exactly the same instability.

Post by Pancho
Naively, I would expect long distance interconnectors to allow isolation
of difference regions, whereas a national distribution/synchronisation
software might produce a widespread problem.

HVDC is not used in the European land based grid. It is mainly used to
cross bits of sea.

The grid is partitioned. Most nations generate their own electricity and
only trade a little across the border to balance things out.

This dies to an extent isolate one countries grid from another's, and
indeed one nations regions from each other.

The grid was only intended originally to offer a little bit of balance,
so that if one regional power station was a few watts short another
nearby one could add a bit.
The massive long distance high capacity flows that remote renewables
have introduced have completely made it inadequate.

Post by Pancho
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.

The engineers know. The CEOs in charge however are all political and
commercial cunts and don't know their elbows from their arseholes.

Renewable energy is a massive business and has deep pockets filed with
taxpayer money. They wont go down without a fight

As with 'lithium car fires' the news will get quietly buried.

[Paul]

Post by Graham.
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 .
<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

[Nick Finnigan]

Post by Paul
There is a claim they lost 15 GW of generation, in a matter of a couple seconds.

I read 15GW in 5 seconds, seems to be 4GW of nuclear as well as solar.

Post by Paul
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.

2 disconnection events within a second, and then the rest go down.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Paul

Post by Graham.
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 .
<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

About as high as the odds that the data will not vanish immediately if
it implicates renewable energy

[Pamela]

Post by Paul

Post by brian

Post by Graham.
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 .
<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.

[tony sayer]

Post by Pamela

Post by Paul

Post by brian

Post by Graham.
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 .
<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.

Ain't that the truth!..

[N_Cook]

Post by Graham.
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

[David Wade]

Post by Graham.
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

[Tim+]

Post by David Wade

Post by Graham.
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
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

[N_Cook]

Post by David Wade

Post by N_Cook

Post by Graham.
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
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

Another possible route in for bad actors.
For the UK SSEN they can by telemetry ,remotely pre-emptively cut
supplies at substations in their network, if these systems were
hackable. Such disconnect demonstrated locally last year for marine
flooding 08/09 April 2023.
It looks like the flood barrier at the Hamble Marina slipway could not
be fitted due to dilapidations or something. The lowest SSEN transformer
was flooded to a depth of about 5 feet in the end. The flood level was
lower than the top of the barrier if it had been in place, but higher
than the top of the open slipway/hard.

https://marineindustrynews.co.uk/south-coast-marinas-shock-flooding/
"For safety reasons, and on the advice of SSEN (Scottish and Southern
Electricity Networks), power was shut off at Hamble Point Marina due to
the three sub-stations that also power the submersible pumps being
partially below water level. The submersible pumps across the site were
operating until the power was isolated."

SSEN would never remotely disconnect a large number of loads at the same
time, but not so for bad actors