> What is the role of renewables?
> Spain is on its way to being a green energy leader: it has abundant sun and wind. Last year was a record period for renewable power generation, which accounted for 56% of all electricity used. By 2030 that proportion will rise to 81%.
> That shift will help Spain end its reliance on energy imports, but it also brings its own challenges. Every national grid in the world will need to spend heavily to upgrade distribution systems to connect scattered renewable generation and ensure it is balanced.
That does not answer the interesting (and slightly conspiratory) question. Did renewables play any negative role in this at all?
Someone already answered this, and yes renewables don't help and you need other kinds of plants. That doesn't tell us much about what actually caused it.
But those other kind of power plants are okay to stay off and start only when such situations arise, right? Still good for the environment I guess - you only burn fossils when the network restarts, which will probably only happen every few years in some corner of the continent. If I understood it correctly, that is.
The issue with solar and wind is that when they're being initiated in the project stage, they're advertised as the equivalent of some amount of average power (or even maximum power, if the project initiators want to be disingenuous about it), when the required amount of construction to match baseload capacity would easily be 3-4x that number.
There really is no one-size-fits-all solution, except for having an energy mix of renewables, with existing thermal power on standby.
Which is basically every winter in Northern Europe at least, and is usually when electricity demand is the highest (very cold days tend to have the least wind).
The UK was very very close to a blackout last winter for this exact reason. If Denmark weren't able to suspend maintenance on part of their grid to max out the Viking HVDC (it was running at half capacity) there would have been loss of supply. Potentially contained to one region and temporarily but it's hard to say for sure.
What's worse is the communication from NESO (now government owned, very recently) was downright misleading to how close it came.
People will believe whatever they want to believe, well in advance of any concrete statement. The actual truth won't matter. The right will use this as a call to burn more coal, the left will say "it doesn't matter because the planet is at stake", and we'll move on.
Thanks non-people-smart 10%, the "right" it's only trying to not close the remaining nuclear plants. I didn't hear anybody call to burn more coal (that will be stupid, specially in Spain). New modern nuclear plants are needed to have a more balanced energy pool, and not depend so much in natural gas. Anyway there is no confirmation yet on what happened, we will see.
Thanks, I know. At which point in this comment chain were we discussing the president of Spain though? Buxato stated they didn't hear "anybody", not "anybody in Spain".
Richard Tice, the Reform party’s deputy leader and energy spokesman, said the events in Spain should be a warning to Britain and showed the risks of net zero.
He said: “We need to know the exact causes but this should be seen as a wake-up call to the eco-zealots.
“Power grids need to operate within tight parameters to remain stable. Wind and solar outputs by contrast, vary hugely over long and short periods so they add risk to the system. The UK’s grid operators and our Government should take heed.”
That's the same Richard Tice that blamed a substation fire on Net Zero and wants to tax renewable power to subsidise non-renewables.
> The core priority of grid services right now is getting power restored, rather than establishing the narrow chain of causal events, which will take weeks or likely months. That will be more than enough time for the narrative to be set in stone; immune to whatever reality emerges from careful investigation.
Wait until you find Spain it's the 2nd most mountainous region in Europe.
Hint: anything non-coast can have dry summers and cold winters, brutal in the mountain regions such as Asturias and Leon, were they burnt coal like crazy, and having temperatures below 0 was and it's still the norm, not the exception. And not just the south of Cantabria, Asturias and so; the Castilles, Aragon and the mountain regions can amaze tourist as if they were phonied expecting a 'sunny' Spain like the beaches.
Mostly humid and foggy panoramas with mountains; and hot and dry summers in the Castilles; but it's like Ohio and the inner USA: you have extremes in both sides. Scorching sun and crazy cold winters, and yet the corn -wheat in Spain- raises like nothing.
So, one valid approach for one region can be void for another one. You can't except to set a global energy policy that works everywhere. Kinda like the US; not everything it's like Texas or Florida.
And, yes, we had tons of dams too near the Tagus and Duero rivers, they can produce tons of power too.
Nowadays, well, I'm pro nuclear, coal was something obsolete since the 80's and 90's.
Coal in Spain was indeed phased out even before wind+solar was a thing. It was not economically viable against imported energy sources such as oil and gas.
The cause needs to be investigated and appropriate measures put in place. Renewables however can't be the only answer - storage is key too.
Wide scale blackouts aren't exactly unknown, no matter what the generation.
And while you and I may agree, sadly the people who need convincing are those who listen and vote for the parties who say "it doesn't matter what we do here when China builds more coal power plants a week than we've ever had".
When they say "the reason you were without power is solar", and the opposition say "doesn't matter, you can't have gas", they aren't going to vote for the opposition.
> Do we not agree that the reality is that renewables are the only sustainable option for energy production?
No, we do not, unless you use a very narrow definition of sustainable. Nuclear will play a big part, especially in Western Europe, thanks to France which exports to all its neighbours and is a good stabilising provider.
And other than that, who knows. Green hydrogen could be a solution for energy storage.
France is effectively planning to reduce nuclear power though. Since they want to keep nuclear weapons it won’t go to zero, but they’re not planning to build enough new reactors to maintain their current output. Electricity demand however will increase in the future.
Since we are taking about the planet about "the planet at stake" I am not so sure that nuclear in france can play such a big part. Climate change will make it much more difficult, this is from Wikipedia:
As of early September 2022, 32 of France's 56 nuclear reactors were shut down due to maintenance or technical problems. In 2022, Europe's driest summer in 500 years had serious consequences for power plant cooling systems, as the drought reduced the amount of river water available for cooling.
> In 2022, Europe's driest summer in 500 years had serious consequences for power plant cooling systems, as the drought reduced the amount of river water available for cooling.
And rules around this have been adjusted to have less of an impact for the next "once in a 500 years" event.
Also, in the same way that France's nuclear power generation being out was covered by German and British renewables, during low points of renewable generation in those countries, French nuclear covered the gaps. That's the point of an interconnected network.
renewables that could renew themselves would be great, but neither solar panels nor wind turbines have an energy return on energy invested. that looks good right now to really close the cycle. much trucking and container shipping is involved in the so-called renewable solution
That does not answer the interesting (and slightly conspiratory) question. Did renewables play any negative role in this at all?