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

Miscalculation by Spanish power grid operator REE contributed to blackout

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: Miscalculation by Spanish power grid operator REE contributed to blackout

#31

Post by cryptonector »

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #28
Etheryte wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't make the point you think it makes. Nuclear power plants are supposed to go offline in unstable grid conditions. This ensures they don't overheat, equipment isn't damaged, and that they can be taken offline in a safe, rather than unsafe manner.

Your point is not really a point either: every power plant can be ejected from the network in such cases, and not just nuclear ones. The remark here is that it precisely happened to a nuclear first.

Nuclear can't ramp up or down fast. As the grid loses generation capacity the load on the base-load type capacity becomes too variable and that capacity has to be brought offline. It's that simple. Nuclear wasn't ejected because there was too much of it but because there was not enough capacity of all types, especially of the gas-fired type that can most readily respond to solar and wind drop-off.

Re: Miscalculation by Spanish power grid operator REE contributed to blackout

#32

Post by robocat »

narag wrote: post #3

Disclaimer: I can't really vouch for any of this, but let me tell you what's being discussed in the press over here. This is Government's version and it shows. REE boss was put there by the ruling party. Still they try to paint REE as a private operator now. It's not. Like many other orgs, it's a mix of private and public capital, ultimately controled by the government. It's suspected that the blackout was caused bec…

> REE technicians readily admit that oscilations are caused by not enough nuclear in the mix

Any argument using the words "nuclear" or "inertia" are incorrect (I suspect often downstream of misdirection caused by the incumbents).

A power network is supposed to be reliable, and it is up to the regulator to create the internal incentives and restrictions such that the network remains reliable as new generation is added.

Other countries have successfully designed their electricity market incentives so that solar provides synthetic inertia, and manages reactive power, and so that voltage cutoffs (over or under) don't destabilise the grid.

The regulator failed to design a stable network. If they were told to run it in an unstable manner, it is up to them to cover their arse.

Re: Miscalculation by Spanish power grid operator REE contributed to blackout

#33

Post by cryptonector »

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #25
narag wrote: post #3

Disclaimer: I can't really vouch for any of this, but let me tell you what's being discussed in the press over here. This is Government's version and it shows. REE boss was put there by the ruling party. Still they try to paint REE as a private operator now. It's not. Like many other orgs, it's a mix of private and public capital, ultimately controled by the government. It's suspected that the blackout was caused bec…

> Private companies are requesting the records of CECOEL conversation to be published, some have leaked their logs. In one of those, REE technicians readily admit that oscilations are caused by not enough nuclear in the mix. And where are those leaks, if one may ask? French-side the only generation station that actually was ejected from the network that day was, precisely, a nuclear power plant. [1] A non-specific "m…

This doesn't show what you think it does. It shows that there was not enough gas-fired (and battery) capacity to offset solar and wind drop-off. Nuclear was driven off because nuclear is strictly base-load only and cannot ramp up fast enough to cope with the variability of peak-load -- under those circumstances nuclear _must_ disconnect from the grid (or part of the grid must be isolated from the rest).

Re: Miscalculation by Spanish power grid operator REE contributed to blackout

#34

Post by cryptonector »

narag wrote: post #3

Disclaimer: I can't really vouch for any of this, but let me tell you what's being discussed in the press over here. This is Government's version and it shows. REE boss was put there by the ruling party. Still they try to paint REE as a private operator now. It's not. Like many other orgs, it's a mix of private and public capital, ultimately controled by the government. It's suspected that the blackout was caused bec…

Nuclear isn't the only issue. It's the lack of sufficient online gas-fired and hydro and battery peak-load capacity. There might not have been enough base-load capacity either, in which case all the peak-load capacity being online would not be enough -- in this case then yes, more nuclear (and coal) would have helped.

Re: Miscalculation by Spanish power grid operator REE contributed to blackout

#35

Post by cryptonector »

robocat wrote: post #32
narag wrote: post #3

Disclaimer: I can't really vouch for any of this, but let me tell you what's being discussed in the press over here. This is Government's version and it shows. REE boss was put there by the ruling party. Still they try to paint REE as a private operator now. It's not. Like many other orgs, it's a mix of private and public capital, ultimately controled by the government. It's suspected that the blackout was caused bec…

> REE technicians readily admit that oscilations are caused by not enough nuclear in the mix Any argument using the words "nuclear" or "inertia" are incorrect (I suspect often downstream of misdirection caused by the incumbents). A power network is supposed to be reliable, and it is up to the regulator to create the internal incentives and restrictions such that the network remains reliable as new generation is added…

> If they were told to run it in an unstable manner, it is up to them to cover their arse.

With you up to this point. Screw that ass covering. Admit the [policy] error and drop the idiotic policy and get back to normal. No need to ass-cover.

Re: Miscalculation by Spanish power grid operator REE contributed to blackout

#36

Post by mschuster91 »

closewith wrote: post #21
mschuster91 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also learned from him that a lot German nuclear facilities are still running there generators only as weight to stabilize the network. We aren't. Pretty much the first things that get dismantled is the turbines and machinery that has no radiation exposure because you need space to maneuver, buffer, dismantle and decontaminate everything else that's coming out of the innards of the plant and actually is contaminat…

Biblis A is used for syn-con, which I presume is what the person the GP spoke to was talking about.

Ah, that explains things - I only looked at the history of the last three in Emsland, Neckarwestheim and Ohu because I assumed that everything else was far too much dismantled to still be operational in any form or shape. Thanks!

Re: Miscalculation by Spanish power grid operator REE contributed to blackout

#37

Post by btilly »

cryptonector wrote: post #33
AshamedCaptain wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Private companies are requesting the records of CECOEL conversation to be published, some have leaked their logs. In one of those, REE technicians readily admit that oscilations are caused by not enough nuclear in the mix. And where are those leaks, if one may ask? French-side the only generation station that actually was ejected from the network that day was, precisely, a nuclear power plant. [1] A non-specific "m…

This doesn't show what you think it does. It shows that there was not enough gas-fired (and battery) capacity to offset solar and wind drop-off. Nuclear was driven off because nuclear is strictly base-load only and cannot ramp up fast enough to cope with the variability of peak-load -- under those circumstances nuclear _must_ disconnect from the grid (or part of the grid must be isolated from the rest).

I would think that a trivial solution for that is to create devices that can supply variable demand. (For example by heating up water somewhere in the ocean.) If the power created by nuclear exceeds base-line demand, create artificial demand to level out the valleys. By strategically wasting power, nuclear can supply a larger share of the demand.

Re: Miscalculation by Spanish power grid operator REE contributed to blackout

#38

Post by cryptonector »

btilly wrote: post #37
cryptonector wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't show what you think it does. It shows that there was not enough gas-fired (and battery) capacity to offset solar and wind drop-off. Nuclear was driven off because nuclear is strictly base-load only and cannot ramp up fast enough to cope with the variability of peak-load -- under those circumstances nuclear _must_ disconnect from the grid (or part of the grid must be isolated from the rest).

I would think that a trivial solution for that is to create devices that can supply variable demand. (For example by heating up water somewhere in the ocean.) If the power created by nuclear exceeds base-line demand, create artificial demand to level out the valleys. By strategically wasting power, nuclear can supply a larger share of the demand.

That's the point of batteries, yes. They don't have to be chemical batteries. Sand (heated to charge, heat extracted to discharge) works too.

Re: Miscalculation by Spanish power grid operator REE contributed to blackout

#39

Post by brewtide »

btilly wrote: post #37
cryptonector wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't show what you think it does. It shows that there was not enough gas-fired (and battery) capacity to offset solar and wind drop-off. Nuclear was driven off because nuclear is strictly base-load only and cannot ramp up fast enough to cope with the variability of peak-load -- under those circumstances nuclear _must_ disconnect from the grid (or part of the grid must be isolated from the rest).

I would think that a trivial solution for that is to create devices that can supply variable demand. (For example by heating up water somewhere in the ocean.) If the power created by nuclear exceeds base-line demand, create artificial demand to level out the valleys. By strategically wasting power, nuclear can supply a larger share of the demand.

I know it's a shamed topic around here, or it seems like it, however I find the Bitcoin mining aspect of chewing up these "needed to be wasted" loads the one true positive of it (Bitcoin).

Yeah, it's changed from its seeming origins. Yes it's number go up! But being able to turn that extra juice, that NEEDS to go somewhere back into 'cash' is certainly on my list of positives.

Obviously, it's lower than batteries and lower or on par with storing as sand/thermal (I guess location and season dependant on this one).

One other perk, now that I rant about thermal, is being able to absorb this extra energy, do some calculations and then provide (location/season) heat. Seems like the calculation aspect is the 3 birds one stone, to me.

Re: Miscalculation by Spanish power grid operator REE contributed to blackout

#40

Post by touisteur »

gred wrote: post #19
serial_dev wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean it could be good enough, as long as she listens to the experts and doesn’t think that “these nerds are preventing me from making history and breaking records” (assuming what parent comment says is true).

Sure, but even better would be if she had experience in the industry to judge tactical advice she is given and set strategic direction. Otherwise the best she can do is "not get in the way".

But then you get complaints/problems of revolving doors and how's she supposed to reform an industry that she will have to go back working for again after her tenure as minister or secretary - assuming she wants to eat and feed her family using her hard-earned industry experience.
Post reply on HN