Live data from Hacker News

2025 Iberia Blackout Report [pdf]

media.licdn.com

141–149 of 149 posts

Re: 2025 Iberia Blackout Report [pdf]

#141
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most economical locations for hydro generation have been built out already. Pumped hydro doesn't require flow like generation does, so there are thousands of times more suitable locations. Those haven't been built out.

At least in my country they have. They keep trying to build a facility but anything they come up with, the ROI just isn't there.

In other words, there are lots of places they could build, but it's just too expensive to build and/or the value of long term electricity storage is too low.

Re: 2025 Iberia Blackout Report [pdf]

#142

Reads very similar to some blackouts we had in Australia. Weakly connected grids with vast geographical distances leading to oscillations that took down the grid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_South_Australian_blackout Completely solved with lithium based grid storage at key locations btw. This grid storage has also been massively profitable for it's owners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve#R…

> Completely solved with lithium based grid storage at key locations btw. That's because Australia has a moderate amount of renewables and prefers to burn fossil fuels. Right now, around 25% of the electricity in Australia is generated by solar or wind. Spain is past 50% of renewable generation, and their problems are much bigger.

The state where this was occurring before the battery build out is over 70% renewables.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_South_Australia

Re: 2025 Iberia Blackout Report [pdf]

#143
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because the only reason that solar is still generating power at negative prices is because they are getting subsidies to do it. This massively simplifies reality. E.g. in Finland where I live we also have issues with negative power prices. A few years ago we had some really low prices. It turns out, a fair bit of wind power producers never opted to add to their windmills any remote shutdown possibility, nor did the…

I used to design wind turbines for a living. Any wind turbine made in the last fifteen years has the capability for remote shutdown. This is not an option, this is basic functionality. Please can you share a source that explains your info?

I don't think it's right at all at least to any systemic level. It's because Finland has a load of nuclear (~50% of all generation esp after the EPR opened) and also a lot of wind power.

Nuclear is not well suited at all to being curtailed, I also suspect it would be worth paying negative prices to avoid it to a certain level - the French reactor cracking problems (earlier design though) are hypothesized from what I read to becaused by a lot of demand curtailment putting stress on the various metals as they heat and cool frequently because of reducing output.

Re: 2025 Iberia Blackout Report [pdf]

#144
post #139
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end of the day, reactive power in and reactive power out need to add up to zero (keeping in mind that many components can add or remove reactive power and that reactive energy is not conserved the way that real energy is) or, equivalently, that the grid voltage needs to be in range. It’s not sufficient to merely keep the higher frequency components of the voltage in range. So if the grid wants to be at 400kV,…

What you're proposing regarding communication/control channels is already present: the system operator has SCADA links to transmission connected generators + an energy management system to help them control their system. See Part C here (e.g., SOs having the ability to control generator setpoints): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:...

I admit that link is rather long and I didn't read the whole thing, but I see a lot of real-time exchange of data, but the only voltage/reactive power control part I spotted was Article 22 1(c), which doesn't clearly say anything about real-time control.

And the original long PDF, page 21, mentions the use of Operating Procedure 7.4 Dynamic Voltage Control, and it very vaguely mentions programming of the RRTT (which seems to include the 7.4 schedule) the day before the failure and the day of the failure, but I didn't see anything about the operator programming the RRTT during the failure to control voltage.

It seems to be (and this is not any sort of control theory analysis) that, if the grid voltage is too high (in specified range, but high enough that tap changers must operate to avoid disconnecting generators) and additional reactive power absorption is needed, then the grid ought to react by operating the tap changers (because it's necessary) and by somehow instructing the generators to absorb additional power despite the operation of the tap changers. And I see plenty of discussion about the tap changers in the big PDF as well as plenty of discussion of data acquired via SCADA links, but I don't see anything about adjusting the reactive power schedules to compensate for the operation of the tap changers or about the use of any sort of real-time SCADA control to adjust reactive power.

Re: 2025 Iberia Blackout Report [pdf]

#145
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let alone the transmission lines totally catching fire after a 10X output increase.

Where are you getting this information from? Although I’m hardly an expert on power lines(my factory produces HV switchgear), a 1s short circuit current rating of 10x(actually more) is normal, standard to IEC norms.

Arcing.

Re: 2025 Iberia Blackout Report [pdf]

#146
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you getting this information from? Although I’m hardly an expert on power lines(my factory produces HV switchgear), a 1s short circuit current rating of 10x(actually more) is normal, standard to IEC norms.

Arcing.

I think they meant 10x current not 10x voltage, so no arcing.

Re: 2025 Iberia Blackout Report [pdf]

#147
post #110
post #3

[flagged]

> but the fans of renewables just flagged it As moderators we can only guess why people flag things, but there are other reasons why people may have flagged that comment, the foremost being that it broke the guidelines due to its inflammatory style. On Hacker News we want to be able to discuss difficult topics involving arguments people may find counter to their assumptions, but you need to express things in a way th…

Was the comment above also in "inflammatory style"? It's an obvious fact that flagging on HN is used by some people as a tool to censor unfavorable opinions. Even worse, AFAIK there is zero consequence for such frivolous flagging.

Re: 2025 Iberia Blackout Report [pdf]

#149
post #147
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but the fans of renewables just flagged it As moderators we can only guess why people flag things, but there are other reasons why people may have flagged that comment, the foremost being that it broke the guidelines due to its inflammatory style. On Hacker News we want to be able to discuss difficult topics involving arguments people may find counter to their assumptions, but you need to express things in a way th…

Was the comment above also in "inflammatory style"? It's an obvious fact that flagging on HN is used by some people as a tool to censor unfavorable opinions. Even worse, AFAIK there is zero consequence for such frivolous flagging.

Users who use flagging inappropriately (i.e., for reasons other than guidelines breaches) have their flagging powers disabled. We do that often. Same goes for unfair downvoting.

If a comment of yours or any other you see is unfairly flagged, you can email us and we'll take a look. We'll explain how we see it and if we agree its unfair we'll restore it and consider action against those who flagged it.

We always discourage complaining about flagging or downvoting in comments as you can never know exactly what has been done by other users or why they did it, and it’s usually a generic tangent from the discussion.

Post reply on HN