I don't think Spain should put the brakes on renewable expansion. The business case for solar is excellent in Spain – way better than in the rest of Europe. The main problem is that Iberia is still functioning like an energy island. It should build more interconnections with the rest of Europe. This should be the main lesson from the blackout: there's plenty of inertia in nuclear France. But just look at the Bay of Biscay interconnector. The project was designated as a Project of Common Interest (PCI) by the European Commission in 2013, and construction only started in 2024, to be finished somewhere in 2028. That's just terrible...
With all due respect, in your business case for even more solar in Spain, have you accounted for:
1) The costs of the needed investments in the grid to manage it?
2) The costs of the planned subsidies for the combines cycle plants (gas) for their capacity?
3) The increase of the costs of the ancillary services for the grid and the increase in compensations to industries for interruptions?
Clearly, the policital message has been that the energy transition only has upsides and has no costs, but on Monday we had a meeting with reality in Spain.
Renewables are only in place because they are subsidized. It's the only way to make them profitable. On the other hand, private investors are craving to build nuclear, since it's also convenient in terms of ROI. But no, people prefer awaiting a miracle like nuclear fusion in 100yrs or, solar power storage, which is probably more than a miracle. In the meantime, you could really build nuclear reactors and producing the lowest carbon in the world, like France or Finland do. Check the data on electricitymaps.com
I generally like the content on this blog, but this post draws concerning conclusions from incomplete information. It makes me question the analytical rigor being applied here.
We don't know yet whether renewables were the primary cause of the blackout, or why it cascaded across the entire Iberian zone. Blaming renewables is premature. The grid operators themselves haven't reached definitive conclusions, and the analysis presented here seems to select facts that support a predetermined viewpoint. A large fraction of renewable generation makes some grid contingencies easier to manage and others harder - this nuance is missing from the post.
Likewise, the comments on energy-intensive industries moving abroad lack important context. Gas prices, global competition, and post-pandemic supply chain realignments are much more significant factors than renewable investment in most cases of European deindustrialization. The post presents correlation as causation without addressing these confounding variables.
Finally, the comments about nuclear power are, ironically, purely ideological while accusing others of the same. Most of Spain's renewable capacity was operational again relatively quickly, while nuclear plants typically require much longer restart procedures following a complete blackout. Right now, nuclear generation in Spain is still down 80% from normal levels. I dread to think how long it would have taken to reestablish power in a more nuclear-dependent grid, given the complex restart requirements of nuclear facilities.
Hear hear. The logic in this piece is inconsistent and based on impartial conclusions, a perfect example of Gell-Mann amnesia. Because I work with power engineers, I can see through the well written bullshit spun here, but just barely :) . Totally worth writing off this blog based on it, it's the first article I'm reading on it as well, I guess I'll just move on to the next one.
To sound this out for others, yes, as ardavei noted, the idea that the low-inertia of the grid has not really been proven yet. The fact of the matter is that, there are new technologies and techniques for running a grid based on intermittent renewables at scale that are hard to predict with models, at least the ones that we have, and, just like fracking for example with it's gradual ability to keep water sources clean, or surgery's history of needing to kill a few people to develop new procedures, for progress to happen with the grid there will be some outages! Expecting progress to proceed without some learning experiences is ridiculous.
This isn't to say that running low inertia grids hasn't been identified as a threat before, as the OP notes! Hopefully it is the cause, because there are known solutions for adding inertia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_VAR_compensator
A reasonable explainer touching on more specifics:
Red Eléctrica de España (REE) is a partly state-owned and public limited Spanish corporation which operates the national electricity grid in Spain. Redeia, REE's parent company, warned in its annual financial report for 2024, published in February, that "the high penetration of renewable generation without the necessary technical capacity to deal adequately with disturbances" in Spain "can lead to production cuts." These blackouts "could become severe, even leading to an imbalance between production and demand, which would significantly affect the electricity supply". Electrical engineering specialists consistently caution about this risk, though often in muted terms to avoid endangering their funding.
I am sure the Spanish intelligence agencies have warned about the risks for cyberattacks on grid infrastructure as well. Does this prove that it was an Israeli or Russian cyber attack?
5 people have died because of this according to El Pais. One of the real problems is that you have people making decisions for which they pay no price when they're wrong, no matter how high a price other people pay.
I don't think Spain should put the brakes on renewable expansion. The business case for solar is excellent in Spain – way better than in the rest of Europe. The main problem is that Iberia is still functioning like an energy island. It should build more interconnections with the rest of Europe. This should be the main lesson from the blackout: there's plenty of inertia in nuclear France. But just look at the Bay of Biscay interconnector. The project was designated as a Project of Common Interest (PCI) by the European Commission in 2013, and construction only started in 2024, to be finished somewhere in 2028. That's just terrible...
With all due respect, in your business case for even more solar in Spain, have you accounted for:
1) The costs of the needed investments in the grid to manage it?
2) The costs of the planned subsidies for the combines cycle plants (gas) for their capacity?
3) The increase of the costs of the ancillary services for the grid and the increase in compensations to industries for interruptions?
Clearly, the policital message has been that the energy transition only has upsides and has no costs, but on Monday we had a meeting with reality in Spain.
Renewables are only in place because they are subsidized. It's the only way to make them profitable. On the other hand, private investors are craving to build nuclear, since it's also convenient in terms of ROI. But no, people prefer awaiting a miracle like nuclear fusion in 100yrs or, solar power storage, which is probably more than a miracle. In the meantime, you could really build nuclear reactors and producing the lowest carbon in the world, like France or Finland do. Check the data on electricitymaps.com
I generally like the content on this blog, but this post draws concerning conclusions from incomplete information. It makes me question the analytical rigor being applied here.
We don't know yet whether renewables were the primary cause of the blackout, or why it cascaded across the entire Iberian zone. Blaming renewables is premature. The grid operators themselves haven't reached definitive conclusions, and the analysis presented here seems to select facts that support a predetermined viewpoint. A large fraction of renewable generation makes some grid contingencies easier to manage and others harder - this nuance is missing from the post.
Likewise, the comments on energy-intensive industries moving abroad lack important context. Gas prices, global competition, and post-pandemic supply chain realignments are much more significant factors than renewable investment in most cases of European deindustrialization. The post presents correlation as causation without addressing these confounding variables.
Finally, the comments about nuclear power are, ironically, purely ideological while accusing others of the same. Most of Spain's renewable capacity was operational again relatively quickly, while nuclear plants typically require much longer restart procedures following a complete blackout. Right now, nuclear generation in Spain is still down 80% from normal levels. I dread to think how long it would have taken to reestablish power in a more nuclear-dependent grid, given the complex restart requirements of nuclear facilities.
Hear hear. The logic in this piece is inconsistent and based on impartial conclusions, a perfect example of Gell-Mann amnesia. Because I work with power engineers, I can see through the well written bullshit spun here, but just barely :) . Totally worth writing off this blog based on it, it's the first article I'm reading on it as well, I guess I'll just move on to the next one.
To sound this out for others, yes, as ardavei noted, the idea that the low-inertia of the grid has not really been proven yet. The fact of the matter is that, there are new technologies and techniques for running a grid based on intermittent renewables at scale that are hard to predict with models, at least the ones that we have, and, just like fracking for example with it's gradual ability to keep water sources clean, or surgery's history of needing to kill a few people to develop new procedures, for progress to happen with the grid there will be some outages! Expecting progress to proceed without some learning experiences is ridiculous.
This isn't to say that running low inertia grids hasn't been identified as a threat before, as the OP notes! Hopefully it is the cause, because there are known solutions for adding inertia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_VAR_compensator
A reasonable explainer touching on more specifics:
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7323997385142030337/
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-power-outages-across-spain-and-portugal/
Red Eléctrica de España (REE) is a partly state-owned and public limited Spanish corporation which operates the national electricity grid in Spain. Redeia, REE's parent company, warned in its annual financial report for 2024, published in February, that "the high penetration of renewable generation without the necessary technical capacity to deal adequately with disturbances" in Spain "can lead to production cuts." These blackouts "could become severe, even leading to an imbalance between production and demand, which would significantly affect the electricity supply". Electrical engineering specialists consistently caution about this risk, though often in muted terms to avoid endangering their funding.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
I am sure the Spanish intelligence agencies have warned about the risks for cyberattacks on grid infrastructure as well. Does this prove that it was an Israeli or Russian cyber attack?
5 people have died because of this according to El Pais. One of the real problems is that you have people making decisions for which they pay no price when they're wrong, no matter how high a price other people pay.
https://elpais.com/espana/2025-04-29/el-gran-apagon-se-cobra-la-vida-de-al-menos-cinco-personas.html