What did you hear?

[ponytug]

Lest any of us feel too complacent;

‘Blackouts can happen anywhere’: how power systems worldwide can collapse

After Europe’s biggest blackout in over 20 years, experts warn that while such incidents are rare, no grid is infallible

www.theguardian.com

All the best,

Peter

 

[CH4Ohio]

Very interesting discussion . . .

Didn't France and Germany already conduct this experiment over the last 25 years and learn that they needed on-demand generation (nuclear, mainly) in order to have a reliable grid? Seems that the US can't learn from watching others.

 

[Runner]

Made sense when I read it. What's left wasn't enough to meet the demand, and it overwhelmed the entire grid. I'm just guessing at that part since that's what happened here in Texas when our windmills froze, and the rest of the grid couldn't handle the demand without those windmills. Hopefully you have a better system there than we do here.

It is my understanding that part of the reason for the Texas blackout was that the Gov. would not let the power companies ramp up the fossil fuel powered generation to make up for lack of wind power, even though they asked to do so.

Am I right or wrong about that?

 

[EddieWalker]

What I remember about it is the group of people in charge of our energy never thought about it getting cold enough in Texas to affect the windmills, so there was never anything done to prepare for it. Once it happened, the finger pointing took over and we just had to wait until it warmed up enough for the windmills to start working again.

How a state rich in oil became depending on windmills is beyond my comprehension. I'm anti windmill, anti solar, and anti wood burning power plants. But there is too much money to be passed around with those things, so in my opinion, that's how we got into that mess.

Those in charge blame all the people moving to Texas, and the demand rising faster than the ability to create enough power for them. So their answer has been to build more unreliable sources of power.

Hopefully Europe has a better plan then we do, but from what I've seen, once a really bad idea takes off, it will pretty much take over the entire planet if politicians can make money off of it.

 

[ponytug]

Very interesting discussion . . .

Didn't France and Germany already conduct this experiment over the last 25 years and learn that they needed on-demand generation (nuclear, mainly) in order to have a reliable grid? Seems that the US can't learn from watching others.

Part of the issue appears to be that the Spanish nuclear plants responded to the grid instability but shutting down, thereby causing more disruption.

@Runner which Texas blackout are you writing about?

All the best,

Peter

 

[Runner]

Part of the issue appears to be that the Spanish nuclear plants responded to the grid instability but shutting down, thereby causing more disruption.

@Runner which Texas blackout are you writing about?

All the best,

Peter

The same one Eddie's discussing in post #24 above.

 

[ponytug]

What I remember about it is the group of people in charge of our energy never thought about it getting cold enough in Texas to affect the windmills, so there was never anything done to prepare for it. Once it happened, the finger pointing took over and we just had to wait until it warmed up enough for the windmills to start working again.

How a state rich in oil became depending on windmills is beyond my comprehension. I'm anti windmill, anti solar, and anti wood burning power plants. But there is too much money to be passed around with those things, so in my opinion, that's how we got into that mess.

Those in charge blame all the people moving to Texas, and the demand rising faster than the ability to create enough power for them. So their answer has been to build more unreliable sources of power.

Hopefully Europe has a better plan then we do, but from what I've seen, once a really bad idea takes off, it will pretty much take over the entire planet if politicians can make money off of it.

In my opinion, I think that there have been lots of denials and foot dragging in Texas on this one. The first major freeze out was because the natural gas facilities weren't frost proof as ERCOT had asked, after years of foot dragging by the generators, and the second blackout was made worse by the windmills having low temperature issues, but one could also ask why there wasn't enough reserve power elsewhere for that not to be an issue.

Me, I'm going to blame ERCOT, and the proven stupid idea that the Texas grid should be isolated from the rest of the country for additional power and stability in times of crisis. That decision may feel good to some Texans, but it has been shown to be stupid idea for grid stability, financial costs, and reliability.

We could have a long discussion about how ERCOT got to its viewpoint and decisions, and I would definitely offer up the California version (CPUC) as also being a great example of a dysfunctional regulator, but I think both have made numerous decisions that have worked out to be not for the good of the public, as argued by many before the decisions were made.

Getting to grid stability is complicated, and it does cost enormous, if not insane, amounts to have a grid be 100% stable, though I would argue it is not achievable. I still think reliable power is valuable, and reliable does imply a stable grid.

All the best,

Peter

 

[KennyG]

Part of the issue appears to be that the Spanish nuclear plants responded to the grid instability but shutting down, thereby causing more disruption.

@Runner which Texas blackout are you writing about?

All the best,

Peter

The nuclear plants shut down when the grid went down, not because of the instability. When the grid frequency gets high or low it automatically shuts off segments to try to correct the frequency. When the grid disconnects a generation source ( nuclear or other) it has to shut down.

 

[5030]

I just glanced at the story when it happened and the only thing I remember about it was that two solar farms had failed.

They aren't 'Solar Farms', they are solar installations. The term farm is a BS term to make them appealing. They raise nothing and when installed on cropland, take that land out of production.

Beside, when the sun don't shine or the wind don't blow (windmills), all they are, are rocks and a bunch of hazardouus materials.

Have no issue with wind or solar, if done right. Problem, most of it isn't.

I guess the Portuguese found out that solar base load don't work all that well.

 

[ponytug]

The nuclear plants shut down when the grid went down, not because of the instability. When the grid frequency gets high or low it automatically shuts off segments to try to correct the frequency. When the grid disconnects a generation source ( nuclear or other) it has to shut down.

I agree with you about the need for generation sites to drop off when the grid gets out of specification, i.e. go sideways.

The articles above list grid instabilities as the cause for the nuclear plants drop off line, and therefore have a crash shutdown. (Which has its own issues, including delays in restarting.) I think it is a bit early to have any certainty. TBD.

However, every generation facility has limits, and if they are exceeded the facility will drop off line to protect the generation equipment. The alternative is prohibitively expensive.

All the best,

Peter