While a comprehensive investigation will take weeks to complete, today’s massive power outages across Spain and Portugal present compelling evidence of the inherent vulnerability in renewable-heavy grids and likely offer a stark lesson in the dangers of sacrificing grid stability on the altar of green energy. While officials scramble to restore power to millions and politicians inevitably deflect blame, the catastrophic failure aligns perfectly with warnings that power grid experts have been sounding for years: systems with high penetrations of solar and wind generation have diminished mechanical inertia and are inherently vulnerable to collapse.
The inertia problem nobody wants to discuss
Spain’s electrical grid, once a model of reliability, has undergone a radical transformation over the past decade. Conventional power plants with massive spinning turbines – the kind that naturally resist frequency changes and provide crucial stability – have been systematically replaced with weather-dependent solar panels and wind turbines that contribute virtually no inertia to the system.
The result? A grid that may function adequately under ideal conditions but remains perilously susceptible to rapid destabilization when faced with disturbances.
Anatomy of a collapse
Initial reports from Spain grid operator Red Eléctrica indicate that ‘oscillations’ in the network triggered the cascade of failures. This technical language obscures a simpler truth: the system likely lacked sufficient physical inertia to withstand a relatively routine disturbance.
The data reveals the shocking speed and scale of the collapse. Real-time generation data shows that before the blackout, Spain’s grid was operating with an extremely renewables-heavy mix, including 18,068 MW from solar PV (by far the largest contributor at approximately 54% of domestic generation) and 3,643 MW from wind. By contrast, conventional synchronous generation sources provided minimal output: nuclear at 3,388 MW, hydro at 3,171 MW, and combined cycle at just 1,633 MW.
After the collapse, the generation mix shifted dramatically as operators struggled to restore the system. Total demand dropped from ~27 GW to just ~16 GW. Interestingly, nuclear generation disappeared completely from the generation stack, confirming that these plants – typically considered the most reliable part of the generation fleet – were forced to disconnect entirely during the event. Solar PV output fell by more than half to 8,236 MW, while other sources like wind and hydro saw similar reductions.
What is system inertia and why does it matter?
System inertia is the inherent resistance to sudden frequency changes provided by the kinetic energy stored in rotating masses of conventional power plants. When a disturbance occurs, this inertia automatically slows the rate of frequency change, giving operators crucial seconds to respond. Consider the difference between a heavily ballasted ship and a lightweight vessel in rough seas. The former can absorb massive waves without capsizing, while the latter remains dangerously vulnerable to sudden squalls.
Power system engineers have been warning about the high penetration of renewables and the inertia-related risk for years. The European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) has been sounding increasingly urgent alarms about declining system inertia. Their studies methodically demonstrate that as renewable generation increases, the reduction in rotating mass weakens the grid’s natural ability to resist frequency disturbances and they’ve identified a critical vulnerability: when renewable generation dominates the mix, the resulting low rotating mass and insufficient inertia create conditions where frequency disturbances can accelerate rapidly – precisely the pre-failure conditions that existed in Spain’s grid before today’s collapse. Indeed, these conditions mirror the vulnerabilities observed in previous European events, such as the 2021 Iberian Peninsula separation.
Lessons for Britain
British grid operators have been highlighting nearly identical concerns. The National Grid ESO’s 2023 ‘Operability Strategy Report’ explicitly identifies that Britain’s system inertia declined by around 40% between 2009 and 2021, creating reduced resistance to frequency changes and making the grid more vulnerable to disturbances. The report further acknowledges that operating to an inertia threshold is increasingly challenging as renewable penetration grows – a warning that recent events in Spain make even more urgent.
As our nation races down the same dangerous path – systematically closing reliable coal and gas plants while becoming increasingly dependent on weather-contingent generation – green energy advocates inside and outside of government will inevitably blame extraordinary circumstances when failures occur, refusing to acknowledge the underlying vulnerability regarding system stability created by dismantling conventional generation capacity. For years, many renewable advocates have dismissed these warnings, claiming that clever electronics and battery systems can provide ‘synthetic inertia’ to replace what’s lost. However, multiple studies have shown this to be untrue.
The path forward
A sensible approach to any energy transition would be to prioritize maintaining adequate system inertia through a mix of conventional generation. New technologies must be carefully tested and validated before widespread deployment. Grid stability isn’t merely a technical detail; it’s the foundation of our civilization.
Unfortunately, Britain’s headlong rush toward a renewables-dominated grid is being led by Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, whose economic illiteracy regarding energy markets is rivaled only by his magical thinking on power system fundamentals. Such delusion is nothing new in the energy sector. Enron’s spectacular collapse came after years of selling ‘innovative’ energy products that analysts and governments lapped up but that were, in reality, elaborate financial illusions. Today’s renewable alchemy represents the next iteration of energy-related magical thinking – insisting, contrary to all engineering evidence, that a grid built on wind and solar can match the reliability and resilience of conventional generation. Like all magical thinking, this too collides with the immutable laws of physics.
This week, millions of Spaniards learned this lesson the hard way, trapped in elevators, stranded on trains, and left without basic services. The economic toll of the Spanish blackout will be huge. With the outages affecting much of Spain and Portugal for several hours (at the time of writing the system is only partially restored and could take days to fully recover), the total economic damage will likely reach into the tens of billions of euros.
Britain faces a stark choice: acknowledge the physical realities of electrical systems and maintain adequate conventional generation or continue the current ideologically-driven path toward likely system collapse.
Stop Press: The power cuts across Spain and Portugal were likely caused by failures at solar farms, the grid operator REE has said. It has identified two incidents of power generation loss, probably from solar plants, in the country’s south-west, which caused instability in the electric system and led to a breakdown of its interconnection with France.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Keep fighting the good fight, Tobes.
We shall prevail!
Hevenshualì.
To be fair, nobody’s born a ”man or woman”, that’d be silly. They should’ve put ”male or female” there. Maybe I’m just being anally retentive…
”Threadneedle Street employees were also advised that it is a “microaggression” to state that “everyone is born a man or a woman, it’s science”. Totally outrageous and cobblers!
I must say, this is funny but factually correct. Woketard Bank of England take note.
*Apologies in advance for the ‘If you’re happy and you know it clap your hands’ ear worm.
https://x.com/CartlandDavid/status/1830143017371464106
The BoE statement is a macroaggression to me.
And sorry, I am clapped out.
Only micro aggressions are discouraged, however macro aggressions are acceptable.
Priceless Mogs
I swear I’ve seen at least a couple of articles saying that DIE or DEI or whatever is waning.
“while fostering a sense of inclusion among employees is, of course, a worthwhile objective”
Not sure about this. It seems like basic business good sense to me to want to attract and retain good staff. When people do a good job, tell them this, and also reward them with better pay and more responsibility/autonomy. Equally when they screw up, tell them they have but also help them to do better next time, unless/until you eventually decide that they are beyond help within the constraints of a sustainable business. Treat each member of staff as an individual and judge them on what they contribute to your business. If this is “fostering a sense of inclusion” then great – but to me it just seems the same as “be professional”. But I would be suspicious of a business that sat down and said “hmm, we need to foster a sense of inclusion among our employees, how do we do that?”. Perhaps I am paranoid.
The business leaders have heard about this thing they have to stay in fashion with and outsource the courses. The exact content and nature of the courses often comes as a surprise to them. It makes sense for someone to bring it to their attention, and speak in terms of law – specifically that it is against the law to discriminate negatively against someone who believes what is bleeding obvious to every mentally stable individual.
“… “while fostering a sense of inclusion among employees is, of course, a worthwhile objective”
Except it fosters a sense of exclusion for those who do not buy into this bovine fæces, it is biased against them because they choose sanity and reality, and evidently can result in loss of promotion or disciplinary procedures.
My point was that even a well intentioned “fostering a sense of inclusion” may lead to trouble. In general I prefer people who try to deal with whatever situation life throws at you in a “good” way rather than people who consciously set out on some systematic program to “do good”.
Foisting one group’s beliefs onto another group does not engender tolerance and understanding.
Yes I know that. That’s not the point I am making. I am responding to what TY wrote, that it’s a “worthwhile objective”. I disagree with him. I think it’s a desirable byproduct of common sense, professional behaviour but should not be an explicit “objective”.
Seems that the tide is turning in the US where all this DIE nonsense started so I guess we can hope it sweeps over the Atlantic in due course. A caveat is that in the US it is the private sector that has got to work for its living that is doing it. And the other good news is that the Net Zero nonsense is quietly slipping away as well. I suspect that was always going to be the case when the targets get closer, the costs rise and reality punches you in the face.
I don’t share your optimism
As someone pointed out yesterday, the number of trans people in UK is about the same as the membership of the WI. Sadly though, the WI is fully committed to DEI, so they may not all have been women before they joined.
Pronoun usage only an issue when referring to one individual who is not present i.e the third person singular. In every other situation the pronouns are gender neutral.
So just use a gender neutral pronoun for the third person singular, such as “it” or “one”? Problem solved.
Pronoun usage is totally contrived nonsense. I attend meetings regularly and I cannot remember a single occasion when I referred to any of my colleagues present as “he” or “she”. You would always use their names and say things like “Paul suggested that…”
The only time when come across some gender ambiguity is when I talk about customers whose gender I don’t know. But now, just out of defiance I always use “he”.
The whole thing is just designed to impose on people compelled speech, and, it is effectively nothing more than compliance training.
I don’t think there is a “problem” that requires solving, except that some people are under the mistaken impression that offence is given, not taken.
If people find it easier to use a pronoun that is not sex-specific, that’s great for them. If it comes naturally to me to use one that IS specific, because I know the person being referred to is a man or a woman, I will do that. Sometimes I am not sure because I have not met the person and/or their name is foreign and ambiguous (to me) and I may use he/she or it. But telling me what pronoun to use or else I get sacked or (in Canada) imprisoned is compelled speech and once we have compelled speech we are lost.
How about “git”?
If it wasn’t for Toby Young, the FSU and a few brave individuals, we’d all be slaves.
I remember the surgeon who refused to be vaccinated during the Covid crisis even though he was threatened with dismissal. It’s people like him that save all of us from totalitarianism. A brave man.
I seem to remember watching a psychologist on YouTube who said that it only takes 3 to 5% of the population to dissent and totalitarian measures become unenforceable.
The tragedy of countries like Stalinist Russia, 1930’s Germany, North Korea must then be that there is not even the 3 to 5% to resist.
I hope Britain will never follow that path.
There’s always the 5% and more that will resist, but it’s the historic failure to resist in unison.
Resisting alone in those countries aforementioned simply meant one disappeared.
If Ketts would have made the decision to march on London, gaining numbers enroute in 1549, we may not be in the predicament we are in today…….
Britain’s been on that path for a long time, MM, and it works for the obsessives just as well for the opposition. The Russians were well aware of the importance of the ‘useful idiots’ in getting unpopular policies accepted by the general sheeple. Here’s just one example, one of the lesser publicised current ambitions of our totalitarian leaders, and a perfect precursor of how Covid policies were made so widely acceptable:-
“Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin referred to the compliant professional authority figure as the polezniy idiot (the useful idiot), a prime asset whose value lies in his or her perceived social respectability and not his scientific or medical credentials. Such people generally form the upper echelons of the professional “in-group, by whom both government and the public is most easily persuaded.
[I]n cohesive social groupings the majority opinion can be switched quickly by a comparatively small but consistently inflexible minority of randomly distributed committed agents. Like religious fundamentalists, they are immune to influence, tirelessly recruiting converts from opposing opinion groups. The tipping point seems to be when these comprise around 10% of the group. Once the group’s consensual opinion flips, its members adopt the self-protective “groupthink” mentality, . . . if necessary engaging in extreme measures in order to protect their new belief.”
The “ten percent” factor: How many “useful idiots” does it take to fluoridate a water supply?
Dr Steve James. A real hero of our times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOlEYcd1nyI
All designed to create further clear space between the elite metros and those ghastly plebs who smoke, swear and behave awfully.
don’t forget the and pay their wages
“Our objective is to ensure monetary and financial stability for the UK.” Seem to be failing on all counts then.
This may count as micro aggression towards BoE
My pronouns are He / Haw
Hehe!
Bank of England Morally Bankrupt
Not to mention incompetent at doing its job, especially Bailey. His job was only saved because of the ruckus in the markets had he been fired for taking too long to raise interest rates, raising them too high and then being slow to reduce them.
“while fostering a sense of inclusion among employees is, of course, a worthwhile objective”,
No, Doing a good job managing UK currency and it’s stability and only in the interests of the UK – That is the only objective. An employees personal interests including what their sexual preferences and leanings are nothing to do with the employer but private matters of the employee. People that are good at their job will find inclusion, which used to be called employment.
By what pronoun do the directors of the Bank of England want the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street to be referred to?
But surely the Bank of England is starting at the wrong point here. From the point of conception every person starts along the female line of development. Then a change occurs in some to turn them male. Hence men have residual nipples.
Confused. If we want to adopt gender neutral language then surely we should stop focusing gender specific pronouns as well.
So what happens if an employee refuses to play this game?
And if one employee refuses, will more employees follow?
It will stop when enough employees say it has to stop.
Furthermore, you could argue that your ‘gender identity’ is very much your private business and not something you need to divulge in a workplace environment.