as good a piece of 'economical with the truth arse covering' as it is
possible to get.
'The margins we maintain for these events are about 80% too low when we
have a grid full of renewable energy and interconnects'
But we are saying it was just a terribly rare set of events and had
nothing to do with renewable energy really'
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a
I have observed in recent times a new culture of buck passing not seen for
many long years. Let me just say this, the public are quite happy to accept
somebody made a mistake, as long as it gets fixed. That does not just mean a
bland statement of lessons will be learned unless they actually are.
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
On 10/09/2019 11:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Arse covering or political correctness? Havn't read final report yet but
I thought it was a sufficiently rare event to be broadly tolerable.
They've already said elsewhere that they will need to invest more and
increase margins as/if renewables grow.
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 15:53:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
The balance ahead of time is in the main determined between the generators and a
party operating on behalf of the 'consumers' i.e. the utilities, based on NG
demand forecasts and those of the utilities
The actual balancing in 'real time' is purchased on a commercial basis by NG
from the generators
The operational margins are determined to cover the largest generation /
transmission system loss.
The actual margin is achieved by reserving system support generation for
frequency/reactive purposes, normally with 'headroom' above the actual plant
output, this could be as little as 2% across the conventional plant fleet.
Maintaining the generation is the function of the generation supplying party.
NG is not permitted to own, operate or directly despatch generation. It can only
instruct a generating party to supply at a particular time on the basis of a
previously agreed price.
They had ~1Gw of spare capacity, and lost a quarter of that on a CGT
station just along from the lightning strike. Well, that sort of thing
The rest of it they lost from a windfarm at the other side of the
country. Which is now being reconfigured, so that shouldn't happen again.
As a result of the swings a bunch of small generators (wind farms, solar
etc) also shut down. That's by design, and ate a big slice out of that
GW they didn't have any more. They should have more margin to cope with
that sort of thing, and that will of course reduce the efficiency of the
Then a valve failed at the CGT station, and they had to shut down the
rest of the turbines. They'll look into that, it shouldn't happen.
Finally a bunch of trains didn't like the frequency shift, and required
a site visit...
It boils down to Siemens not building units to specification shutting
down when the supply frequency dropped below 49Hz for 16 seconds,
although the design parameter was 48.5Hz.
Siemens then implemented a software "upgrade" which removed the ability
of drivers to undertake a "Battery Reset" on some units - those with the
older software could repower, those on the new release needed the
attention of technicians - and getting them to the right trains took a
long time. These are the dangers inherent with implementing software
upgrades on these trains which have not been properly tested.
and it's in themiddle of nowhere, so how does the tech get there? and how
long does it take?
Mind you I was on an Edinburgh to London train last year which stopped at
Berwick and it took nearly an hour to get the brakes released!
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.