Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Happened in the UK Blackouts?

mitchoneill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 175 posts

Re: What Happened in the UK Blackouts?

#141

Post by Zenst »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #132
sergioj97 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure there is a lot of people who is interested to know if this is someone's fault, and I don't think it has anything to do with how media covers this issues. I think it's a good thing, in fact. This failure may be within acceptable parameters and it may be simply meaningless to try to find someone truly responsible for it. But you seem to be unreasonably reluctant to believe that maybe it's not. I underst…

> But you seem to be unreasonably reluctant to believe that maybe it's not He seems to be working for National Grid or at least in the field so might be defending his own here or taking my comments personally.

I do not work for the grid and last involvment in that area was working for Eastern Electricity Board as an analyst/programmer upon a COBOL DPS7 mainframe circa first half of the 80's and worked upon a new plant management system mostly (distribution level so upto attaching to the main grid). I've had no involvement in that industry since then. I have also worked for the Department Of Health, RAND, and numerous other industries and involvement.

I have no axe to grind. Hope that adds some clarity.

Re: What Happened in the UK Blackouts?

#142

Post by Zenst »

sergioj97 wrote: post #65
Zenst wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Would you not prioritise an airport, a hospital, the railway, over residential areas?" Yes and they do. As mentioned, things get added to the grid all the time, case of the airport was that it was not on a priority list. Yes that is an oversight, but who's fault and accountability we do not know. The onus would of been in the airport to inform the power distribution and if that failed to happen then the airport woul…

I'm pretty sure there is a lot of people who is interested to know if this is someone's fault, and I don't think it has anything to do with how media covers this issues. I think it's a good thing, in fact. This failure may be within acceptable parameters and it may be simply meaningless to try to find someone truly responsible for it. But you seem to be unreasonably reluctant to believe that maybe it's not. I underst…

"But you seem to be unreasonably reluctant to believe that maybe it's not."

WE have covered many area's, trains, planes and hospitals (maybe a movie there). Sure I'd rather focus on the technical aspects and not presume this was something totally avoidable. Rather look at each nuance instead of the binary blame game. Which is not clear cut. After all - we don't know what SLA's supply contracts are in place now do we. But nothing is ever 100%. But it is possible to argue both sides of the coin and without ALL the details, go around in circles.

If we really want to blame anybody - why not just blame God for allowing it to happen and move on. Leave it to the report, which will happen into the incident and associated fallout to cover all that and discuss any blame then, once all the facts are in. But remember - we do not know what the SLA levels are, so all those fallouts take on a whole new perspective of blame. Equally, you can have a problem and nobody is to blame - though God works for those, at least "Act of God" is actually used in insurance contracts (yes worked in that field as well disclaimer, though late 80's early 90's). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God

Re: What Happened in the UK Blackouts?

#143

Post by Zenst »

jimmaswell wrote: post #100
mytailorisrich wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue with this specific outage is that it was badly managed. The main gripe people and authorities have with what happened is that key infrastructures immediately lost power. When (only) 5% of demand is turned off this should not impact railways, airports, and hospitals. Beyond the initial loss of power other problems amplified the consequences: For example, trains could not just restart but required specialist…

A potential argument against transit reliance, or at least trains relying on the grid to keep running (instead of using batteries or diesel). Personal transport options (cars, bikes, horses) are a decentralization success story when the grid goes down.

It may well be that cars with large batteries enable a smarter grid that can store surplus generation at off-peak and buffer the peaks better. After all - not everybody drives their car at the same time, and some access to a cheaper rate of electric for allowing your car to be used in such a way when it is plugged in, is certainly one avenue that may well open up more, as we see more and more electric cars.

Though the swappable battery charger offerings do seem to be more suited in accommodating such avenues and removes the worry of battery lifetime cycles from the owners. Worry that their car acts as a grid battery for a month when on holiday and reduces it's life beyond the cost of saving. So will be a case of getting the balance right. Hence I feel the swappable battery offerings may be at an advantage here and opens up making such solutions more cost effective to run.

Re: What Happened in the UK Blackouts?

#144

Post by walshemj »

pm215 wrote: post #12
mytailorisrich wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue with this specific outage is that it was badly managed. The main gripe people and authorities have with what happened is that key infrastructures immediately lost power. When (only) 5% of demand is turned off this should not impact railways, airports, and hospitals. Beyond the initial loss of power other problems amplified the consequences: For example, trains could not just restart but required specialist…

A lot of the headline grabbing stuff wasn't the grid's fault though: * the railways didn't have traction power disconnected -- but one type of (new) train saw the within-specification frequency drop, shut down, and in many cases needed a fitter to go out and restart it. Everything else behind a dead train was stuck. I imagine the train company are discussing this with their supplier... * Ipswich hospital had a power…

Ah I wondered why the ST Pancras line was in such a mess hours later

Re: What Happened in the UK Blackouts?

#145

Post by walshemj »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #115
topspin wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read your list and see a bunch of 'technical debt.' Trains put into operation without the ability to survive a power transient without intervention. Life critical backup power system failures. The set of critical sites is not being maintained properly. In my mind these failures are are not entirely unrelated; reliable power is taken for granted and the testing and maintenance necessary to cope with power outages is…

This is not technical debt. These are signs of oversights or potential poor management. Indeed that's what neglecting these procedures is. This is why a comprehensive investigation is needed to ensure the details are known and all lessons learned or, unfortunately, re-learned.

Its shockly poor procurement - those new trains are not fit for purpose.

Re: What Happened in the UK Blackouts?

#146

Post by walshemj »

noir_lord wrote: post #55
pm215 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Triggering demand disconnection randomly is saying "we should provide consumers a service including deliberate random blackouts". That's OK in contexts like Netflix where the downstream systems are supposed to be able to be resilient to faults and failures are comparatively low-stakes anyway. But almost all grid consumers aren't resilient to power loss (would your house continue to be fully functional without noticea…

One of the hospitals affected by the blackout describe in this article had it's generators fail to come online cleanly, they had to go manual in ICU.

Why are they not on battery at all times in ICU

Re: What Happened in the UK Blackouts?

#147

Post by bsder »

circular_logic wrote: post #62
eDISCO wrote: post #10

Most traditional generators (think CCGT, nuclear, hydro) run in synchronous mode. Which means the generators spins with rpm proportional/equal to the network frequency. For 50Hz that would be 3000rpm. When the total electricity demand exceeds the supply, the kinetic energy of spinning generators is converted to electricity which slows down the generator rpm, which reduces the frequency. All synchronous generators on…

That makes me wonder, if you were standing next to these turbines would you be able to here them slow down?

Probably, although you are more likely to hear the 3000Hz to 2880Hz change in the generator RPM than the 50 to 48.8 change in the output.

Re: What Happened in the UK Blackouts?

#148

Post by generatorguy »

karamitru wrote: post #94
eDISCO wrote: post #10

Most traditional generators (think CCGT, nuclear, hydro) run in synchronous mode. Which means the generators spins with rpm proportional/equal to the network frequency. For 50Hz that would be 3000rpm. When the total electricity demand exceeds the supply, the kinetic energy of spinning generators is converted to electricity which slows down the generator rpm, which reduces the frequency. All synchronous generators on…

There was a comment once on HN that once a power generator was hooked to the network without the phases being aligned, and the resulting mechanical forces were so large that the generator got unbolted from the floor and flew through the air. Not sure if true or not.

It could well be true, This has happened many times

Re: What Happened in the UK Blackouts?

#149

Post by growse »

walshemj wrote: post #145
mytailorisrich wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not technical debt. These are signs of oversights or potential poor management. Indeed that's what neglecting these procedures is. This is why a comprehensive investigation is needed to ensure the details are known and all lessons learned or, unfortunately, re-learned.

Its shockly poor procurement - those new trains are not fit for purpose.

Do you mean that they don't meet the requirements of the tender spec ("not fit for purpose") or that the spec in the tender process was deficient ("shockingly poor procurement")?
Post reply on HN