Live data from Hacker News

2025 Iberia Blackout Report [pdf]

media.licdn.com

81–90 of 149 posts

Re: 2025 Iberia Blackout Report [pdf]

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought you needed two dams. One higher than the other. You pump water back and forth between the two to generate or capture energy. Is it that common that dams are already existing in nearby-ish pairs with the sufficient height difference? And that we haven't done this already? Doing this is good where we can. But it has geographical limitations. Batteries don't so much.

My layman's understanding is that most locations that are suitable for pumped storage already have pumped storage built on them.

Yep, this is the issue. That and land cost. Also pumped hydro is most useful when you need very large capacity storage, whereas for preventing blackouts you need very high capacity fast generating to fix oscillations or to allow more generating capacity to come on line. They are basically acting as decoupling capacitors (except for AC) in this application.

Re: 2025 Iberia Blackout Report [pdf]

#82
post #64
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also just unfounded conspiracism and factually incorrect.

> It's also just unfounded conspiracism I don't see that. > and factually incorrect. Then substantiate your point. Stability is one of the things grid operators pay for-- not just production.

Stability is one of the things grid operators pay for, sometimes, but whether they pay enough and validate that they're actually getting it is another thing. One core thing the report highlights is that many of the plants on the grid didn't do what they were required (and being paid) to do.

Re: 2025 Iberia Blackout Report [pdf]

#83
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Temporary negative prices have been caused by the renewable generation which exceeded the grid demand at the time, which then evolved into the nasty feedback loop caused by the reaction of renewable generation to those conditions. You simply do not get such situation with traditional generation, it's the direct consequence of the intermittent nature of renewables and its high ratio in the total generation. Also, have…

So an incredibly cheap source of supply exceeded the demand, and the market rules and some trips caused cascading failures. Why is the problem the cheap source of supply rather than the market rules and incentives that made everything act the way it did? Your comment suggests move back to good ol' expensive fossil generation instead of looking at how to bring the market rules up to date with evolving technologies.

>Why is the problem the cheap source of supply rather than the market rules and incentives that made everything act the way it did?

I explicitly mentioned this line of argument in the GP. The problem is that renewables only sometimes cheap and plentiful and often not when we want it. Even without accounting for the politically-driven preferential treatment covered in the sibling comment, from the purely technical point of view intermittency above certain threshold wreaks havoc in the traditional grid architecture designed for the traditional easily controlled "rotating" generation. It becomes really hard to manage the grid with existing tools when you have too much of intermittent highly distributed generation and in the extreme it leads to collapses like this.

As I wrote, yes, you could upgrade the grid, increase transmission redundancy, add battery/pumped/flywheel storage, introduce "smart" tools to manage the grid, and do a plethora of other things to accommodate renewables. Hell, you could even migrate the grid to DC!

But the cost of doing it is substantial. It's effectively a form of externalities of renewable generation, which are not accounted for in naive "cheap" $/kW metrics. Properly accounting for those externalities and adding them to the cost of renewable generation is possible, but politically unappealing.

>Your comment suggests move back to good ol' expensive fossil generation instead of looking at how to bring the market rules up to date with evolving technologies.

No, I believe we should remove the politically motivated shoehorning of renewables at the cost of grid stability. There should be a limit on how much intermittent generation we can have depending on the preparedness of the grid and we should pay less for power from such sources, not guarantee purchase from them!

As you say, we should have proper incentives structure which accounts for various externalities (including CO2 emissions!). We need to remove the existing subsudies on renewables which made sense in the early days, but not now. Let the generation sources play at the even field.

Re: 2025 Iberia Blackout Report [pdf]

#84
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Temporary negative prices have been caused by the renewable generation which exceeded the grid demand at the time, which then evolved into the nasty feedback loop caused by the reaction of renewable generation to those conditions. You simply do not get such situation with traditional generation, it's the direct consequence of the intermittent nature of renewables and its high ratio in the total generation. Also, have…

So an incredibly cheap source of supply exceeded the demand, and the market rules and some trips caused cascading failures. Why is the problem the cheap source of supply rather than the market rules and incentives that made everything act the way it did? Your comment suggests move back to good ol' expensive fossil generation instead of looking at how to bring the market rules up to date with evolving technologies.

Because the law mandates that renewables must be bought. Thats why prices fall negative.

Re: 2025 Iberia Blackout Report [pdf]

#85
post #64
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also just unfounded conspiracism and factually incorrect.

> It's also just unfounded conspiracism I don't see that. > and factually incorrect. Then substantiate your point. Stability is one of the things grid operators pay for-- not just production.

It's unfounded conspiracy to bang on about how "they are clearly hiding something".

Read the report. Power systems are complicated and not as easy as just "build another nuclear plant". It was (by regulation) conventional units that were required to provide voltage support, and it was in part their failure to operate according to their requirements that lead to the voltage excursions that caused the system collapse. The renewable systems that were capable of providing voltage stability were not allowed to do so.

Re: 2025 Iberia Blackout Report [pdf]

#86
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's inaccurate on the whole though, because while those big generators can't move fast, demand can move fast! Which is a difficult problem to manage in baseload grids. Renewables just change one set of challenges for another set, at the end of the day it's all manageable.

> because while those big generators can't move fast, demand can move fast! Which is a difficult problem to manage in baseload grids. Don't forget rotational inertia. This gives the system a high-frequency response mode: it can resist sudden demand changes through stored kinetic energy, effectively acting as a low-pass filter with a fast dominant pole. As you get a smaller share of generation with rotational inertia,…

> in the late afternoon right when demand slopes upwards for cooling.

Demand rises because that's how people have their system set up. That cooling load can be shifted earlier in the day by using a slightly smarter thermostat to precook your house when the electricity is plentiful.

Re: 2025 Iberia Blackout Report [pdf]

#87
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like pumped hydro offers a nice compromise.

Most economically-suitable locations for pumped hydro have been built out already. You can always use a ton more concrete and force new locations, but the best locations have already been utilized and scaling law of batteries has brought them to the point where they're more competitive than new hydro for this kind of use.

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.

Re: 2025 Iberia Blackout Report [pdf]

#88
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it is technically correct, but so are you. More inverters in parallel will achieve the same end goal - fast frequency response.

Are you actually certain there are insufficient inverters though? Again, that doesn't pass the smell test and I'd want to see a cite for "batteries don't work for high frequency spike buffering because of inverter shortfalls" or something.

i'm certain there are more than enough inverters.

what's correct is that each individual inverter can only increase its power output momentarily to 20% or so above its maximum. Add more inverters and that problem is solved.

Re: 2025 Iberia Blackout Report [pdf]

#89
post #69

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…

But Australia is tiny: 27M people. Just Spain is twice as big, and the European grid serves 500M people, we don't have the same problems, and probably can't solve them with the Australian solutions.

I wouldn't dismiss lessons from Australia. It has slightly higher electricity consumption than Spain (273 vs 265TWh/annually [1].) And there are limited interconnections to France [2]:

> That problem may not have been entirely Spain’s fault, El País said. “Interconnections with the rest of the continent continue to be much fewer than the European Commission recommends, not because Spain isn’t interested, but because France has for years resisted expanding them.”

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici...

[2] https://www.theenergymix.com/massive-blackout-in-spain-shows...

Re: 2025 Iberia Blackout Report [pdf]

#90
What is curious to me is that there's a possibility that a single plant in conjunction with natural oscillations caused enough trouble to start a doom scenario.

Oscillation -> damping -> possibly faulty equipment and possibly lack of power plants to absorve the reactive load -> 0 voltage in two countries and some neighbouring regions

There's also the possibility that Portugal put too much demand on the market due to negative prices, but I'm not sure if it was explained how much that had an effect on the whole thing.

Post reply on HN