Any thoughts/information on what happened? Was it a lack of spinning reserve?
Was it " The Portuguese operator, REN, said the outage was caused by a “rare atmospheric phenomenon”, with extreme temperature variations in Spain causing “anomalous oscillations” in very high-voltage lines."
as is written in the Guardian?
The Italien blackout from a few years ago had a definate cause in the tripping of interconnetors from Switzerland during a storm.
The next report from ENTSO-E on the Iberian blackout has now been published:
This suggests that the cause was a large quantity of various renewables going off line.
'Several important generation trips occurred from 12:32:00 onwards. Between 12:32:00.000 and 12:32:57.000, there was a loss of 208MW identified distributed wind and solar generators in northern and southern Spain, as well as an increase in net load in the distribution grids of approximately 317MW, which might be due to the disconnection of small embedded generators <1MW (mainly rooftop PV) or to an actual increase in load or to a combination of both. The reasons for these events are not known. From 12:32:57.000 until 12:33:18.020, major disconnection events occurred in the regions of Granada, Badajoz, Sevilla, Segovia, Huelva, and Cáceres, which resulted in an additional loss of generation of at least 2GW (the effects of frequency deviation suggest a loss of even 2.2GW).'
The reasons for for the trips are not stated.
Thanks for this Roger
However, I disagree: It doesn't suggest that renewables were the cause.
The document is a factual report describing the sequence of events; it explicitly states that the root cause analysis (including determining whether the network operators' actions contributed) is a next step i.e. the cause is not addressed in this report.
Instead the report defines the event as starting at the time that things started tripping. The first things to go were indeed embedded generators. These were mostly renewables, and the actual cause of the trip is not explicitly known, but subsequent trips were due to overvoltage then overfrequency and RoCoF. Because distribution network voltages tend to flap around more than transmission, it is perhaps unsurprising and likely by design that they went first. This does not mean that they were the cause.
(Disclaimer: Obviously I haven't had the chance to read the report in full as it is very dense detail and it was only released today)
As you say there is a lot of detail in the report. There were clearly some stability problems before the trip.
Thermal 4–Centre /South-West was meant to be online for voltage control but was unavailable due to internal problems. Thermal 5–Centre/South-West was left connected during the previous night for voltage control but was shut down on the morning of the trip.
The need for more conventional generation with power system stabilisation was recognised and a CCGT plant was ordered to start up, but the trip occurred before it was up to speed.
This is stated here:
2.6.8 Technical Constraints in Spain
“Even if there was not a remunerated voltage control service in place, power plants scheduled by the TSO under PO3.2 to solve situations of lack of dynamic voltage control receive the technical constraints remuneration (pay as bid) for their active power redispatch. In security studies conducted on 27 April, for 28 April, the combined cycle “Thermal 4–Centre /South-West” was scheduled for the entire day to regulate voltage in Western Andalusia. At 19:52 on 27 April, the unit was declared unavailable due to an internal problem, initially until 22:00 on 27 April and later extended to 00:00 on 30 April. The connection of “Thermal 5–Centre/South-West” was extended during the night to secure voltages. During the morning of 28 April, RE considered that the “Thermal 5–Centre/South-West” plant was not needed. There is no operational procedure approved in Spain where a minimum number of generation units coupled is required, and there is also no maximum limit. The criterion to decide the coupling of an additional generation unit is the fulfilment of Operational Procedure 1.1 with foreseen scenarios (generation, demand, and network). At 12:20 on 28 April, RE ordered the connection of an additional thermal power plant equipped with PSS, following the detection of system oscillations. The selected group was a combined-cycle gas plant in centre/south-west, which indicated that it could be connected in 90 minutes. At 12:26, the confirmation was issued to the power plant to connect at 14:00. Due to the blackout occurring before 14:00, this connection never occurred. In general, RE is aware of the start-up times of the combined-cycle gas plants in its control area.”
The initiating event for this cascade failure was the disconnection of various renewables as is shown in the table starting on page 103. The reasons for the disconnections are not given.
It is interesting to note that the restart was carried out using hydro and thermal generation. The renewables were not allowed back online until everything was running stably again.
The initiating event for this cascade failure was the disconnection of various renewables as is shown in the table starting on page 103. The reasons for the disconnections are not given
As engineers we should also ask WHY things happened thus a reason must be obtained so that future occurrences can be minimised or eliminated altogether.
It may well be that the problems relate to expecting inverter driven generation, usually renewable, to behave in the same way as traditional sources. That is however a problem of control algorithms and setting trip limits, rather than any intrinsic "renewable problem" with solar power, batteries, or whatever.
It maybe worth noting that private solar power is really advancing in leaps and bounds in some sunnier countries where traditionally folk have been less worried about 'first world' niceties such as frequency, voltage, pssc and so on, and the local infrastructure is generally more "flaky" anyway.
Mike
There is a fundamental difference between traditional thermal or hydro generation systems and inverter connected renewable sources, the overload ‘ride through’ capabilities. As you say here:
https://engx.theiet.org/f/discussions/31419/iberien-peninsular-blackout/150004
“there are a number of things about our grid management that are assuming that all the sources behave much like conventional generators, i.e. the frequency tries to slow down when overloaded leading to phase shifts between current and voltage that can be detected and acted upon in slow time, for a very short duration overloads can be massive > 100% without anything bad happening, and critically as here, a spinning thing can switch from motor to generator and back, to absorb energy either for several cycles or during one part of the cycle, while trying to speed up a bit and push the power station round, and then give the excess energy back slightly later, much like a mechanical flywheel.”
“And of course, overload - the jokes about transistors being the fastest fuses on 3 legs are based on unfortunate facts. True cycle duration energy storage, without moving parts ,rather than emulated, requires large inductors and/or capacitors, and at grid scale this becomes a serious and bulky engineering exercise.”
The problem may well be more than control algorithms and trip limits. We have developed AC grid systems which work very well with rotating generation and can accept an amount of inverter sourced power.
The Iberian Peninsular Blackout suggests that there is a practical limit to the amount of inverted based power that can be fed into a conventional grid. The recovery action, that was unfortunately applied too late, was to bring in more conventional generation. Renewables were the last generation sources to be bought back in once everything had been stabilized.
There may be technical solutions, but by the time you have restructured the grid and added batteries and synchronous capacitors etc. the energy and resource payback time may become infinite.
There has been a lot of capital, political and real, invested in this attempt to decarbonize electricity generation. It would be very embarrassing to many if it was not realistically achievable.
There is a fundamental difference between traditional thermal or hydro generation systems and inverter connected renewable sources, the overload ‘ride through’ capabilities. As you say here:
https://engx.theiet.org/f/discussions/31419/iberien-peninsular-blackout/150004
“there are a number of things about our grid management that are assuming that all the sources behave much like conventional generators, i.e. the frequency tries to slow down when overloaded leading to phase shifts between current and voltage that can be detected and acted upon in slow time, for a very short duration overloads can be massive > 100% without anything bad happening, and critically as here, a spinning thing can switch from motor to generator and back, to absorb energy either for several cycles or during one part of the cycle, while trying to speed up a bit and push the power station round, and then give the excess energy back slightly later, much like a mechanical flywheel.”
“And of course, overload - the jokes about transistors being the fastest fuses on 3 legs are based on unfortunate facts. True cycle duration energy storage, without moving parts ,rather than emulated, requires large inductors and/or capacitors, and at grid scale this becomes a serious and bulky engineering exercise.”
The problem may well be more than control algorithms and trip limits. We have developed AC grid systems which work very well with rotating generation and can accept an amount of inverter sourced power.
The Iberian Peninsular Blackout suggests that there is a practical limit to the amount of inverted based power that can be fed into a conventional grid. The recovery action, that was unfortunately applied too late, was to bring in more conventional generation. Renewables were the last generation sources to be bought back in once everything had been stabilized.
There may be technical solutions, but by the time you have restructured the grid and added batteries and synchronous capacitors etc. the energy and resource payback time may become infinite.
There has been a lot of capital, political and real, invested in this attempt to decarbonize electricity generation. It would be very embarrassing to many if it was not realistically achievable.
on the surface, this doesn't seem to be a mismatch between generation and demand leading to frequency collapse. The immediate issue seems to be a rise in voltage which led to things tripping off to save themselves, so it may be unwise to point the finger at any particular generating technology until we know a little more
I look forward to the next report, which promises to look at the causes and remedies
There is a fundamental difference between traditional thermal or hydro generation systems and inverter connected renewable sources, the overload ‘ride through’ capabilities.
The problem here is that that difference is by historic design that didn't like the new-kid on the block.
By defining the inverter style equipment as 'grid-failing' (sorry, grid-following) and the rapid development of larger and larger renewable based generation capabilities, it has led to the 'poor' (misunderstood) management practices for grid forming.
Those approaches used historic assumptions about what and how the systems respond.
"If I were you I wouldn't start from here", "why did you come this way anyway?"
It's going to take a while and a few bits of CPD / refreshers on the new fundamentals before this all gets sorted (if it ever does - CO2 has a long memory).
Is the steam engine flywheel the latest in technology we consider?
We have developed AC grid systems which work very well with rotating generation and can accept an amount of inverter sourced power.
Don't forget that there are plenty of examples of systems that are 100% inverter driven - e.g so called "off grid" system, where proportionally, the problem of matching supply with demand is if anything a much greater problem (e.g. one appliance suddenly switching on or off could represent a sudden change of tens of percent of the generating capacity - swings of magnitude that the national grid would never have to deal with (and would probably collapse if it was asked to). And these "mini grids" probably less diversity in terms of power factor of loads and so on as well. For sure scale can bring extra challenges (e.g. oscillations on lines that are hundreds of miles long), but I've yet to see any insurmountable challenges.
- Andy.
Is the steam engine flywheel the latest in technology we consider?
Given the recent Rail 200 celebrations it's interesting to remember Richard Trevithick's 1804 locomotive, where one reason for its failure was because the cast iron rails (i.e. the infrastructure) couldn't take the weight. However a solution came along, which was to re-engineer the infrastructure.
And of course before that James Watt had tried to prevent Richard Trevithick's development of high pressure steam on the grounds that it wouldn't work - missing the technical developments in metallurgy which meant that it could.
It's really easy to fall into a "not invented here" mindset, I'm embarrassed to say I've done it myself over the years ("digital audio will never replace analogue" c. 1990, "axle counters will never replace track circuits" c. 2000). Of course new technology brings new challenges. But as you say AJJewsbury they're often not insurmountable - in fact they keep us employed!
Not to say being cautious is a bad thing. I might be persuaded one day that autonomous cars are not considerably more dangerous overall than human driven cars - just not today. But, unless it actually breaks the laws of physics, we should be wary of considering any technology as inherently unfeasible.
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
