Spain’s power outage

[Guineafowl]

Can anyone offer some insight into the recent grid blackout in Spain, Portugal and southern France?

Possible causes/factors reported include a cyber attack, freak winds wrapping HV cables together, humidity and high temperatures causing physical oscillations and failures of cables, or a lack of physical rotating mass.

I realise no-one knows for sure yet, but some comments on those possibilities would be interesting.

 

[phinds]

I realise no-one knows for sure yet, but some comments on those possibilities would be interesting.

Sure, let's all just spent time speculating on what might have happened. I mean, who needs to wait for the facts?

 

[Guineafowl]

I was hoping the discussion would evolve as the investigation progressed. There are members on here who know a lot about power grids, and they must be thinking about the event. I’d like to hear their thoughts.

Would you say your post obeys the rule against snide remarks, or aligns with the PF values of civility, patience, diplomacy, etc.? I wouldn’t, so please turn down the sarcasm.

 

[nsaspook]

I was hoping the discussion would evolve as the investigation progressed.

Would you say your post obeys the rule against snide remarks, or aligns with the PF values of civility, patience, diplomacy, etc.? I wouldn’t, so please turn down the sarcasm.

Yes. He was very respectful and correct IMO about not speculating without at least some verified engineering facts.

I'd like to know what really happened, and the root causes that triggered this mess.

 

[Guineafowl]

Yes, I appreciate it’s early days, but as I say, the facts will dribble in as we go. I’m pretty sure the information on here will be better than what I’m reading in the papers.

Edit: for example, my usual paper has a graph of Spain’s energy demand, showing it floating around the 30 MW mark. It’s clearly a few powers of ten out.

 

[phinds]

Would you say your post obeys the rule against snide remarks, or aligns with the PF values of civility, patience, diplomacy, etc.?

Yes, this is a science forum. As member @PAllen has said

Note, we are not called 'idle speculation forums without understanding or knowledge'.

I prefer to wait for the facts.

 

[phinds]

I'd like to know what really happened, and the root causes that triggered this mess.

Me too. It was QUITE a mess for a whole lot of people.

I hope it doesn't devolve into a finger pointing exercise but gets to the bottom of why it occurred. The only thing I have read so far is that a cyber attack has been ruled out, but there was no discussion (at least I didn't see any) of HOW it had been ruled out.

 

[Guineafowl]

I wouldn’t call the speculation of someone like Anorlunda idle, nor lacking in understanding or knowledge, if he chooses to contribute. If you prefer to wait for the facts, that’s fine by me, but please allow the thread to continue, as I’m interested.

 

[Gheed]

It is impossible to prove or disprove many theories popping up. There are no videos of a transformer failing or high-voltage line melting to go on. A hack in the system, how would you even know? If you can rule out one theory, it does not exactly narrow it down either. But if the forum rules do not allow it you can still have a discussion about power grid reliability and risks in general.

Maybe some things can be somewhat 'grounded' like what exactly are 'high temperatures' causing breakdowns or 'how much rotating mass is too little' or 'what forms of physical oscillation happen in HV grids'. Assuming it is not all just quack.

Reminds me of this from Feynman about 'Why' questions (and magnets)

 

[berkeman]

I wouldn’t call the speculation of someone like Anorlunda idle, nor lacking in understanding or knowledge, if he chooses to contribute.

As you can see from his Profile, @anorlunda has not been active at PF for the last couple of years. Likely sailing around the world again...

 

[Guineafowl]

As you can see from his Profile, @anorlunda has not been active at PF for the last couple of years. Likely sailing around the world again...

Ah, I hadn’t looked. I bet there are some other power engineers on here, but his name came to mind as the one who wrote the Insights article on what happens in the grid when you flip the light switch.

 

[DaveC426913]

I confess, I'm a bit surprised that they - apparently - don't even have a clue yet. At least, not one they're willing to share.

I'd think we'd at least have some facts like where it originated and what components stopped working.

 

[tech99]

It is interesting to think about factors affecting the reliability of modern power networks. One of the factors seems to be the amount of mechanical inertia in the system, because the old rotating alternators have been partly replaced with inverters running off solar and wind power. The frequency of a network needs to change slightly to match the load, and rotating machinery helps to iron out the response to fast glitches and overloads. Rather than scrap the old power plants, maybe keep the machinery spinning.

 

[Guineafowl]

It is interesting to think about factors affecting the reliability of modern power networks. One of the factors seems to be the amount of mechanical inertia in the system, because the old rotating alternators have been partly replaced with inverters running off solar and wind power. The frequency of a network needs to change slightly to match the load, and rotating machinery helps to iron out the response to fast glitches and overloads. Rather than scrap the old power plants, maybe keep the machinery spinning.

You mean run them ‘in reverse’, ie motoring? That sounds simple and effective.

It’s emerging that a power source of some sort failed in the south-west, then another, then the Spain-France interconnect. In general, a drop in frequency leads to generators shutting down, which leads to more frequency drop, which is a positive feedback loop.

The idea of load shedding makes sense, but why do generators shut down in these cases? Does supplying a lower frequency lead to more current draw, and some sort of runaway?

The papers talk of frequency drops ‘damaging electrical equipment’, even in fractional amounts. But most sensitive electronics are SMPS-powered and so shouldn’t notice, ditto brushed motors. Induction motors would run fractionally slower, but my milling machine motor runs quite happily, in short bursts, from 5-100 Hz. In a nutshell, why does such a tiny drop in frequency matter?

 

[Rive]

The papers talk of frequency drops ‘damaging electrical equipment’, even in fractional amounts.

At grid level small (very small) frequency (phase) changes what determines the power flow (intensity, direction).

 

[Guineafowl]

At grid level small (very small) frequency (phase) changes what determines the power flow (intensity, direction).

In a similar way, as I understand it, my solar inverter pushes power into the grid by slightly leading the frequency. But I still wonder what equipment would be damaged by running at 49 Hz instead of 50 - is it an overcurrent/overheating issue? Or is it not so much about the equipment, but the low-frequency region pulling power from other areas and destabilising the network?

 

[Rive]

Or is it not so much about the equipment, but the low-frequency region pulling power from other areas and destabilising the network?

Yes. I think in this context 'equipment' is grid-operator stuff, the power flow is in MW range, with frequency variations usually measured in mHz...

 

[Guineafowl]

Yes. I think in this context 'equipment' is grid-operator stuff, the power flow is in MW range, with frequency variations usually measured in mHz...

I can see how a big rotating mass could stabilise the grid if we’re talking mHz and mS.

What would happen to a) an alternator and b) an inverter if it continued online at, say, 49.5 Hz?

 

[Rive]

Are you asking about the difference between the spinning mass vs. electronics type generation on the grid, or about end-user equipment?

 

[Guineafowl]

Are you asking about the difference between the spinning mass vs. electronics type generation on the grid, or about end-user equipment?

The former - what would happen to a power plant alternator, and a solar or wind inverter, if they failed to go offline in the face of such a frequency drop?

 

[Rive]

When the good old spinning mass meets a grid frequency drop then it'll increase the output for a limited time till the inertia can support it, or the protection allows.

Wind is tricky: big turbines/generators are not a homogeneous bunch. In general, it's usually said that they do not provide much power increase in case of grid frequency drop.

Inverters (solar) - in general they have no reserves of their own, so no means to provide increased power. They just pump out the same power till frequency is within allowable range, and then shut down.

Though there is a catch for the latter: some new (old ones can't!) solar inverters can hold back if the line voltage is high (and that coincides with higher frequency periods), so some increase in power is possible when frequency drops (voltage goes down from excess to normal level). But it's not centrally regulated, thus kind of unreliable/tricky/limited.

 

[Guineafowl]

When the good old spinning mass meets a grid frequency drop then it'll increase the output for a limited time till the inertia can support it, or the protection allows.

Wind is tricky: big turbines/generators are not a homogeneous bunch. In general, it's usually said that they do not provide much power increase in case of grid frequency drop.

Inverters (solar) - in general they have no reserves of their own, so no means to provide increased power. They just pump out the same power till frequency is within allowable range, and then shut down.

Though there is a catch for the latter: some new (old ones can't!) solar inverters can hold back if the line voltage is high (and that coincides with higher frequency periods), so some increase in power is possible when frequency drops (voltage goes down from excess to normal level). But it's not centrally regulated, thus kind of unreliable/tricky/limited.

Although such huge blackouts are rare, would you say, with the advent of more renewables, that we might move from such huge grids to a more cellular, compartmentalised arrangement? The latter would seem more resilient (by analogy with firebreaks/bulkheads) and simpler to control. Or is it the opposite, that a huge grid has more ‘inertia’ and therefore stability, and this trumps the extra complexity?

I’m still not quite clear on the function of underfrequency protection for the spinning alternators or inverters. It seems counterintuitive to drop out power sources in the face of a power drop, so there must be a good reason for it. Is it as simple as lower frequency leading to higher current draw, and overheating?

I used to tend to a 30 kVA 3ph genset that would run a big house during power cuts. Now, if a big load came on, it would ‘dog’ the diesel engine down, frequency would drop, but as long as the overcurrent protection didn’t trip, it would simply ride out the surge and carry on. Why do grid power sources not do this, or is my example too stripped-down to be relevant?

 

[Rive]

would you say, with the advent of more renewables, that we might move from such huge grids to a more cellular, compartmentalised arrangement?

For the integration of intermittent energy it was a key point that with more sources connected the fluctuations are supposed to 'average out' => widespread, connected grids.

On the other hand, with the integration of intermittent sources the prices are going up, making small, local grids/solutions viable.

Honestly, I have no idea how will this turn out.

I’m still not quite clear on the function of underfrequency protection

I'm also not an expert at the required level to answer that in proper detail. But: usually it's all about the carefully controlled network of connected devices and grids. As long as there is adequate control, the whole thing is operated within limits, thus connecting (synchronising) the pieces is possible.
Once it's out of control (and out of frequency range is a good indication) then it's just out of control and keeping connected becomes a serious risk.

With one grid (part) dropping at 49Hz and another still keeping 50Hz you'll get some really serious issues at the connecting transformer very soon, right?

I used to tend to a 30 kVA 3ph genset

Hook up three of that in parallel and see what happens when one of them suddenly goes out of sync...

 

[Guineafowl]

Hook up three of that in parallel and see what happens when one of them suddenly goes out of sync...

Argh! Yes, I see what you mean; throw in an interconnect with another house as well, and some solar inverters…

Thanks for the replies. Although I’ll never be a power engineer, I’m clearer on just how difficult it all is.

 

[tech99]

The alternators in a network must all be at the same frequency, not close but the same. The changes that occur during load variations in normal operation are slow changes in the position of one alternator rotor relative to the others in the network. As the network demands more energy, we have to supply more steam to get into exact step again. If we cannot do this quickly enough, an alternator will lose sync and be destroyed.

 

[DaveC426913]

 

[nsaspook]

PSRC - IEEE PES
https://www.pes-psrc.org
PDF
IEEE TUTORIAL ON THE PROTECTION OF SYNCHRONOUS GENERATORS

Read this.

 

[Tom.G]

I think a technical report gets more into the subject.
Try this: 119.pdf "Practices for Generator Synchronizing Systems"

Many more on the general subject here: https://www.pes-psrc.org/reports

Cheers,
Tom

 

[Guineafowl]

^^ thanks both, I’ll have a read through that.

 

[Dullard]

It's more useful (for me, anyway) to think in terms of phase errors. Being at the same frequency is necessary, but not sufficient.

 

[Guineafowl]

It's more useful (for me, anyway) to think in terms of phase errors. Being at the same frequency is necessary, but not sufficient.

On the other hand, if two generators are feeding in with slightly different frequencies, are beat frequencies relevant, or too slow to matter?

 

[Rive]

What makes the whole thing so annoying is, that you can't get phase changes without frequency changes.

Complaints should be forwarded towards daddy Fourier.

are beat frequencies relevant, or too slow to matter?

If things went that far to have them something is already burning, most likely.
Phase angles must be kept within limits, so no 180 degree difference (protection is supposed to kick in far before that).

 

[Guineafowl]

Power engineer Dr Capell Aris, writing in the Daily Telegraph, seems to back the inertia argument:

“Iberia is part of the Continental Europe Synchronous Area which stretches to 32 countries. It is interconnected as a phase-locked, 50 Hz grid with a generation capacity of 700 GW. To improve the stability of this grid, the EU aim is that all partners will extract 10 per cent of their power consumption from synchronous interconnectors – ones which transmit grid inertia – helping to make the whole system more resilient. France is at 10 per cent, but peninsula grids and those at the geographical fringe are the least interconnected. Spain has just 2 per cent from synchronous interconnectors.”
[Source: telegraph.co.uk]

The initial failure is still to be determined, but in some sense it doesn’t matter, since these things will happen from time to time. The resilience problem needs to be addressed, as we can’t have a couple of solar farms (or whatever) taking out entire countries.

He goes on to mention the UK’s vulnerability to this, being a smaller grid. Our interconnects with Europe won’t help much, since they “transmit no grid inertia”, being asynchronous DC links.

 

[Guineafowl]

A couple of quotes from a late forum member which seem prescient. I’m sure most could guess who it is:

2016 re: traditional steam turbines:
“… And that's why i think the "Kill Coal" movement is ill advised dilettante tinkering. It adversely affects system inertia.
"Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do."”

2017 re: if I were in charge of energy policy:
“I think i’d rescind mandates on utilities to acquire “X%” of energy from renewables. The grid is a machine and when politicians mess with machinery they generally do it harm.”

 

[DOGE3500]

A couple of quotes from a late forum member which seem prescient. I’m sure most could guess who it is:

2016 re: traditional steam turbines:
“… And that's why i think the "Kill Coal" movement is ill advised dilettante tinkering. It adversely affects system inertia.
"Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do."”

2017 re: if I were in charge of energy policy:
“I think i’d rescind mandates on utilities to acquire “X%” of energy from renewables. The grid is a machine and when politicians mess with machinery they generally do it harm.”

Spot on…

 

[Ken Fabian]

A couple of quotes from a late forum member which seem prescient. I’m sure most could guess who it is:

2016 re: traditional steam turbines:
“… And that's why i think the "Kill Coal" movement is ill advised dilettante tinkering. It adversely affects system inertia.
"Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do."”

2017 re: if I were in charge of energy policy:
“I think i’d rescind mandates on utilities to acquire “X%” of energy from renewables. The grid is a machine and when politicians mess with machinery they generally do it harm.”

Ignore climate change and all that expert advice about reducing emissions? I find that very dismaying.

I don't think it is reasonable to expect zero teething problems in the transition to zero emissions and a good idea badly implemented doesn't make it a bad idea - and so much energy policy that reduces emissions is half hearted, inadequately funded and compromised by vested interests and partisan climate politics (empty gesturing as well as fierce opposition) overriding the expert advice. It is not like FF heavy grids have never had major unexpected outages. Those didn't result in decisions to cease to use FF's, they resulted in fixes to the problems.

There are solutions to keeping RE reliable (doing it better) that don't require keeping the coal (and gas and oil) and not having more renewables.

Australian experience suggests "spinning machines" that are not generators can take up that 'inertia' role - eg synchronous condensers that are not generators and potentially 'clutch fitted' gas turbines that use the generators independently without making power in a similar way. And increasingly (and possibly displacing the spinning machines) the use of 'grid forming' inverter fitted batteries with fast and precise frequency and voltage controls - ie virtual inertia.

It was only 8 years ago that South Australia got it's 'Big Battery' - whole battery megafactories have been built and are already in mass production since then. There were no grid forming inverters then. This sector is progressing at astonishing rates, battery chemistries and architecture as well as inverters. Who knew that trying harder - R&D -could deliver results?

 

[Rive]

I don't think it is reasonable to expect zero teething problems

There are just two main issues.

One is, that these are no 'teething problems' but problems long predicted - and swept under the rug by overly optimistic guys who were blinded by their zeal.

Other is, that replies like 'Ignore climate change and all that expert advice about reducing emissions? I find that very dismaying.' has become a programmed response for mentioning any relevant problems by now, even if it's nothing about ignoring climate change.

 

[Guineafowl]

Don’t worry, he's not saying ignore climate change. I’ve seen the tendency before, under such an existential threat, to apply reductio ad absurdum to any cautionary note about green technologies. “Careful with that new tech” becomes “climate change denial”.

Here’s another quote from the same interview, and a link so you can read the whole thing (my bold text):

“Wind and solar will stay with us so long as there’s a robust grid to support them . Every kwh they make is a pound of coal that can stay in the ground , and that’s a good thing.”
Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/interview-instrument-engineer-jim-hardy/

^^ That’s an engineer stating the way forward, and that it should be done properly, which might include the grid-forming inverters mentioned. What appears to have happened in Spain is, the march of renewables outstripped the control measures needed.

Compare with a politician, perhaps with an arts degree, making sweeping changes to the grid (“dilettante tinkering”)based on arbitrary, populist targets (“Kill Coal”). Democracy is for running a country, not machines.

@Ken Fabian I’m aware of synchronous condensers for VAR compensation. How does their inertia compare with a steam turbine, which I’m told weighs 350kg or so?

 

[Ken Fabian]

Taking the top level science based expert advice that says we need to quit coal (and gas and oil) as soon as possible, by displacement is not a "populist" whim or fad. Calling quitting coal populist sure is suggestive of not taking that advice seriously.

Failures of leadership may have given RE their start - empty gestures of appeasement of 'green' populism that reinforced framing of the climate issue as environmentalist and fringe - but it has progressed enough to have earned the place it has now as our principle means of displacing fossil fuel dependence. Yes there is an element of 'winging it' with RE because of the messy, divided politics, lack of clear leadership and deep reluctance to grasp this nettle firmly.

The alternatives to RE - like nuclear - require levels of planning, investment and commitment that political leadership appears incapable of. We should not stop doing what we are doing - RE - in a misplaced hope that some overarching plan to get to zero emissions faster and better will (or even more unhelpfully, might) replace it.

How does their inertia compare with a steam turbine, which I’m told weighs 350kg or so?

As a free spinning inertial component, with barest minimum fuel burning to maintain it? Take the steam away and a turbine becomes a brake. Or by keeping high levels of FF generation capacity running? Keeping the FF generation for preventing or fixing stability problem fails the fixing emissions requirement.

The proposal for 'clutched' gas plants (inertia from the generator alone) makes some sense - where gas plants are incentivized to spend as much time not burning gas as possible.

We are fully capable of better "solutions" to system stability with high renewables than preventing high levels of renewables.

I think networked batteries with fast and precise voltage and frequency control are going to end up doing this and probably do it better than spinning inertia.

 

[Rive]

The alternatives to RE - like nuclear - require levels of planning, investment and commitment that political leadership appears incapable of.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. The very operation of the grid itself (!!) requires planning, investment and commitment comparable to nuclear power.

The sheer size and price of the underlying infrastructure: the delicateness of operation: the required safety and reliability: the price of failure - quite comparable.

 

[Guineafowl]

Taking the top level science based expert advice that says we need to quit coal (and gas and oil) as soon as possible, by displacement is not a "populist" whim or fad. Calling quitting coal populist sure is suggestive of not taking that advice seriously.

No-one on here would disagree with the “soon”, I’m sure, but it’s engineers who should dictate the “as possible”, not politicians, that’s all I’m saying. The seriousness of CC is not in dispute here.

Back on track, re: the passive spinning turbines, it wasn’t my idea, it was @tech99 ’s, but I assume they’d flatten or remove the fins to reduce windage, then you’re left with one moving part and a few bearings, or is that oversimplified?

 

[Ken Fabian]

There is no Canuting the RE tide.

Whilst considerable impetus towards RE was through popular and therefore political support a tipping point on cost has been crossed and now power generation companies seeking new electricity supply at least cost drives the uptake now.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. The very operation of the grid itself (!!) requires planning, investment and commitment comparable to nuclear power.

Even before RE got cheap no governments anywhere were willing to make that level of commitment to nuclear - which would be a commitment to suppress fossil fuels. RE began as being seen as unworkable, unscalable and no threat to FF's - empty gesturing that turned out delivering much more than expected.

As long as nuclear advocacy preferentially presents it as 'saving us from renewables and 'green foolishness'' (aka climate science) - not as fixing emissions except in some vague, far off future (as per recent Australian experience) - I don't see the politics of it changing enough to make nuclear a centrepiece of Net Zero policy.

The economics of it are so poor that market forces will continue to work against it. Those are now working in favour of RE, strongly. But then I think the strong expectation that nuclear will never be as cheap as fossil fuels is part of why pro fossil fuels politics prefers it over RE - it doesn't present as a serious threat.

(Yes I know - edging into the political, sorry. But this will probably be enough on this from me on this).

I would note that the worst of recent major power outages in Australia came from storms taking out transmission line and fossil fuel power plant failures.

 

[Rive]

RE got cheap

I'm afraid that's just another fundamental level misunderstanding here. RE is cheap only at source.
Its contribution to overall electricity costs is typically several times larger than other sources.
And the ratio is climbing by its share in the grid.

The economics of it are so poor

Ad absurdum, by the very same economics the economics of childbirth is even poorer. Are you really confident in that kind of economics?

'saving us from renewables and 'green foolishness'' (aka climate science)

We already see the result of that scandalous mixup of 'green' advocates. Do you really believe that the current backlash is without roots in reality? And by mixing up saving the planet with advocating - enforcing! - the most cost intensive 'solutions', now we got even the climate change brought to question

That likely several decade worth of delay towards any possible real solution that the current 'green' brought upon us by this is a thing really hard to forgive.

 

[Ken Fabian]

Whereas I see climate science denial by nuclear's 'besties' (captains of commerce, industry, media and politics) as the single worst thing that happened to climate action in general and to nuclear-as climate-solution in particular. No climate problem, no need for nuclear.

Without comparing to the costs of unmitigated global warming from inaction (and that inverts the reality from emissions as a too strong action to no emissions as the 'too strong' action) - without the biggest subsidy of all, the perpetual amnesty for climate harms by FF's - I think we cannot readily judge the relative costs of RE or nuclear energy with FF's.

I think the alarmist fear of RE - fears of economic ruination - are greatly exaggerated. Maintaining grid reliability with high rates of solar and wind is well within modern technological capabilities - and those abilities keep getting better.

We have RE that works because of scientist, engineers and (capitalist) entrepreneurs - credit where due, even if 'green' activism helped them get their start. Giving 'green' energy some empty gesture funding (or perhaps enough rope) in the expectation they would amount to nothing (reinforcing climate change as a green fringe issue - not mainstream - and leaving 'greens' looking foolish) was one of the best misjudgements so far.

Portraying RE as the greater and more immediate danger - not global warming - is clever politics, granted.

 

[Gheed]

https://www.entsoe.eu/news/2025/05/...tigation-into-the-causes-of-iberian-blackout/
ENTSOE started the investigation in the outage, here is the info up until now.

IMO the real 'problems' with renewables have never been about the grid. Yes grid capacity is a know issue for years (in my country) and so is stability, but both are solvable. The main problem is the usage and storage of the energy, once the grid has a high penetration of renewables. Which is about now for some countries. Fortunately at ~50 degrees latitude we have >15 hours of sunlight during the summer which helps a lot in using this energy. During winter we have too little though. It is a problem of the ages; Too cold during winter, and too hot in the summer. Should we all migrate to a lower latitude, and use more batteries? Keep on using fossils? I hope to move forward instead. We have never gone back in tech.

Anyways, looking at the current info posted by ENTSOE, it could still be anything. Up until now known, the first event is ~2200 MW of generation that decoupled from the grid in <30s in southern Spain. Why this has happened, what the grid situation was back then, and how the peninsular grid failed is unknown. Even a 'race' condition could be possible (tinfoil/teething) where multiple generating plants shut off at the same time accidentally. It could take up to 6 months for a full analysis from what I see in the links on the page above. But since it is a full blackout, we should know by then the full cause.

Maybe we should discuss the general energy situation in a different thread like here https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/you-fix-the-us-energy-crisis.42564 if that was not a closed topic..

 

[Rive]

Portraying RE as the greater and more immediate danger - not global warming - is clever politics, granted.

You have cooked up enough strawmans already to feed a biomass PP. It would be better to stop.

 

[Guineafowl]

Maybe we should discuss the general energy situation in a different thread […]

Yes, quite right - let’s steer the thread back to engineering. Thanks for the pointer to the initial report.

My only comment would be that 2200 MW seems quite a small amount to lose, even unexpectedly. These things are bound to happen, so what’s more interesting is the propagation, rather than the initial cause.

 

[Ken Fabian]

My view is we are better placed than ever before to achieve significant emissions reductions because of RE and this major outage will lead to doing it better.

I expect the solutions to grid stability including in the Iberian Peninsula will increasingly turn to 'virtual inertia' - with maintaining minimum levels fossil fuel plant operations as an interim measure only, not as a 'reversal' on RE. Medium term (maybe 5 years) could, maybe will see installation and use of synchronous condensers to keep that minimum down - but unlike batteries have quite narrow utility and limited earning potential.

First use of virtual inertia using grid batteries - https://arena.gov.au/assets/2024/02/Neoen-Hornsdale-Power-Reserve-Upgrade-Project-Summary-Report.pdf

So we've seen a good start on use of Virtual Machine Mode inverters to use batteries to provide system inertia and it was achieved by firmware and software upgrades to a working grid battery inverter controller. That means other existing batteries can be upgraded at relatively low cost - and probably a lot faster than adding dedicated synchronous condensers, even if those are deemed essential.

It has already moved beyond a maybe test case into a working part of South Australia's grid management. Grid managers aren't betting all on that, not yet; they currently like SC's, a known thing.

 

[DOGE3500]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/17/europe/spain-april-blackout-not-cyberattack-intl-hnk?cid=ios_app

In case you missed it…. This is what happens when politics builds power systems.

 

[Filip Larsen]

Arstechnica also has a piece on this:
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...ower-plants-meant-to-stabilize-voltage-didnt/

The blackout that took down the Iberian grid serving Spain and Portugal in April was the result of a number of smaller interacting problems, according to an investigation by the Spanish government. The report concludes that several steps meant to address a small instability made matters worse, eventually leading to a self-reinforcing cascade where high voltages caused power plants to drop off the grid, thereby increasing the voltage further. Critically, the report suggests that the Spanish grid operator had an unusually low number of plants on call to stabilize matters, and some of the ones it did have responded poorly.