Re: The Physics Behind the Spanish Blackout

On 6/10/25 11:13, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-06-10 10:53, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

On 6/10/25 02:11, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-06-09 22:44, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>

On 2025-06-09 21:54, Don Y wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:29 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-06-09 21:14, Don Y wrote:

Why were the hydro and nuclear plants IN THE AFFECTED SPANISH REGION so
poor at providing that "inertia" (even if only to allow THAT part of the
country to safely "island"?)  Why were they among the last sources to
come
back online?

>
Hydro was the first to come back online.

>
When did fossil fuel and nukes come back into the mix?

>
fossil somewhere in the middle, nucs last of all. Gas turbines I think
entered second.
>

>

Islanding can happen if there is generation of the needed size in the
region, of the same power as the power usage. And that did not happen,
specially with solar/wind. Nor with nuclear.

>
The coverage seems to suggest the region had an out-sized supply
relative to
it's demands.  I.e., if not for the influence of the rest of the grid, it
likely could have come back as an "independent operation".
>
>
From:
<https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-what-we-do-and-do-not-know-about-the-
blackout-in-spain-and-portugal/>
>
      “​​The world didn’t walk away from fossil-fuel and
nuclear power stations because New York suffered a massive blackout in
1977. And it shouldn’t walk away from solar and wind because Spain and
Portugal lost power for a few hours.
>
[Note that there were also blackouts in 1965 and 2003 -- I don't know
about other parts of the country as I wasn't living in those places]
>
      “But we should learn that grid design, policy and risk mapping
aren’t yet up to the task of handling too much power from renewable
sources.”
>

>

>
OTOH, we're sticking with other technologies (fossil fuels -- coal -- and
nukes) despite obvious and yet to be solved problems INHERENT in their
technology.  Adding "inertia" synthetically to a network is a considerably
more realistic goal than sorting out how to deal with nuclear waste or
the consequences of burning carbon.

>
Solar and wind can be made to impose a gigantic inertia with appropriate
electronics. You can fixate the output at 50Hz, locked no matter what.

>
Only if the surplus energy is available to supply the necessary current.

>
Not needed.
>

>
Why not?

 Think about it. Inverters can be locked in frequency to any timing source. No matter what's the tendency of the network, the inverters, which are millions, can keep the frequency they supply at, undisturbed. Locked in frequency and phase to a given time source. Infinite inertia. With whatever power they have at the moment, which in Spain was 70% of the total when the blackout happened.
 Rotating masses can be pushed to change frequency by the load. Inverters can't, if so programmed.
 

As I've explained on several past occasions, the frequency is a
necessary feedback signal. Generating plants adjust the power
delivered to the network by looking at the frequency error.
There are limits to this, of course. If the frequency drops too
low, the power demand rises beyond the generator peak power
and it will trip.
There is no such thing as infinite inertia. Something /will/
break.
Jeroen Belleman