Spain/Portugal blackout

[Roger440]

6 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

The report projects gas falling by around 60% from 

current ie 10% total annual.

 

As you say we will always need something for when wind and solar are a no go.

 

In the absence of lots more nuclear it will likely be gas.

 

But that's fine.  What we do need to do is stop gas being the price setter outside of the times when it is doing the majority.

 

Maybe if the price is set on gas (or whichever fuel) only if it exceeds a certain percentage. Essentially setting the price on the 90% (or whatever) generator not the 100%

 

So the expensive gas etc get paid, but everyone else gets a lower (but still higher than cost) price.

 

Ive said it before, and ill say it again. No one is going to break that price link. Too many people (influential) getting rich fast as a consequence. 

[SteamyTea]

8 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

The per house would also make peak shifting /shaving more of an individual choice rather than enforced from above

I am the expert at that, why my house only draws power half the time.

Most people can't work out E7, and truly believe that storage heaters don't work (but oddly believe that oil filled heaters are better) and that is the problem.

Best to leave power delivery and management to the people that know about it.

[Dillsue]

7 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

The report projects gas falling by around 60% from 

current ie 10% total annual.

 

 

 

?? 60% drop from 2022 figures by 2030ish, then climbs continuously to 2050 to get to the same level of gas generation we have now. See the graph in section 4.1

 

I guess the drop is on account of additional renewables deployed up til 2030. Thereafter I guess the ever increasing gas generation is to feed demand growth after we've maxed out renewable install. If there was an electricity price drop with renewable deployment it looks to be only a few years down the road before gas generation is on the rise again and bills with it??

[Beelbeebub]

13 hours ago, Dillsue said:

?? 60% drop from 2022 figures by 2030ish, then climbs continuously to 2050 to get to the same level of gas generation we have now. See the graph in section 4.1

 

I guess the drop is on account of additional renewables deployed up til 2030. Thereafter I guess the ever increasing gas generation is to feed demand growth after we've maxed out renewable install. If there was an electricity price drop with renewable deployment it looks to be only a few years down the road before gas generation is on the rise again and bills with it??

I think the rise in gas later on is due to their model not "seeing" any more renewable generation being added in the future due to assumptions. 

 

From the notes on the graph you mention.

 

"Natural gas generation responds to this increasing low carbon generation by falling
rapidly until the late 2020s. It then stabilises as less new low carbon generation capacity
comes online based only on EEP-ready policies. By 2040 it will be around 48 TWh, 61%
lower than 2022 levels...." (my emphasis)

 

The EPP-ready bit is that they only consider policies that have been approved or funded at the current time.

 

So they aren't including any new capacity that is at too early stage of development. We don't know what the policies will be in 2040 or even the technologies available then. Maybe we'll all be whizzing about in our cold fusion powered jetpack by then.

 

It is likely (in the absence of the aforementioned cold fusion jet packs or similar) that we will need some sort of thermal power backup and that may well be gas. But hopefully in smaller amounts than predicted there.

[SteamyTea]

On 29/04/2025 at 06:21, Beelbeebub said:

Predictably the Telegraph blames "net zero"...

So here is the REE report on the disconnect.

 

Seems it was bad management that failed to schedule the combustion plants, which were being paid to help stabilise the grid.

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/investigation-into-spains-april-28-blackout-shows-no-evidence-cyberattack-2025-06-17/

[saveasteading]

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

stabilise the grid.

In summary, the flywheel principle that you previously referred to, was not in place  .??

[SteamyTea]

59 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

In summary, the flywheel principle that you previously referred to, was not in place  .??

While some inertia is useful, it has to be remembered that large electrical grids run on a predictive statistical model, not on reactive feedback.  There is also the radial design of the network that would have worked against itself.  There is only so much extra power that can be injected into a single bulk transmission line.  The UK grid is a ring design, which allows for more entry point for distributed generation.

 

This is partly why the European Super Grid is such an important infrastructure project, even of a couple of countries got taken off grid, it would still function.

As we transition from centralised generation to distributed generation, and increase our reliance of electricity (however it is generated) to replace fossil fuels (mainly gas heating and transport), we are just going to have to accept that more cables have to be run around the country.

 

The below picture is on my daily drive along the A30 near Hayle, you can see the sandy towans on the left.  The power station was closed in the early 70's.

 

[LnP]

19 hours ago, saveasteading said:

In summary, the flywheel principle that you previously referred to, was not in place  .??

Not caused by renewables or lack of inertia....

 

"The ultimate cause of the peninsular electrical zero on April 28th was a phenomenon of overvoltages in the form of a "chain reaction" in which high voltages cause generation disconnections, which in turn causes new increases in voltage and thus new disconnections, and so on. This phenomenon was preceded by large amplitude voltage variations in short periods of time throughout the morning."

"Therefore, it is highly probable that, in a scenario of greater inertia and therefore a slowing down of the frequency drop, the "surge wave" would have caused the "cascade effect" in any case, causing a significant part of the generation to drop and thus overcoming the response capacity of the underfrequency protections.."

 

Spanish_blackout_report_1750239802.pdf