Induced atmospheric oscillations.

Ultimately its by definition the same voltage. But you feed the current in a little bit ahead in phase.

Hmm. It doesn't just happen the way it does with spinning generators. Sounds like the software wasn't quite right.

I'm surprised there's enough capacitance in the system to provide significant amounts of power for significant time - meaning megawatts for seconds.

Andy

The paraphrasing of the report, says there were "enough plants" online to provide the stability. This means the analysis didn't find an "outright stupid" combination of resources. It was initially rumored, there was no spinning reserve at all, as part of an experiment of some sort.

I expect to some extent, the control loop bandwidth is going to depend on how long the spinning reserve can hold a given condition. What I don't know, is how or if the Spanish have automated their control (rely on SCADA). It is the kind of thing, you don't want humans in the loop, if the human response is going to be too slow.

I don't know where you get the idea I "whitewash" renewables. I'm an electrical engineer, who got the highest mark in my class in Power Systems. Which if you knew the context, you'd laugh.

But anyway, the people who work our grid here, have some sort of metric they are using for renewables. They seem to know what ratio of spinning reserve to renewables can be "managed" by the control system that exists. Years ago, this number was 13% wind, and our windmill collection was not up to the 13% mark at the time. I happen to believe that's the right number. That helps keep the noise on the grid, to a manageable level.

And just like there is nothing that lasers cannot do, on power systems there is nothing that batteries cannot do. To solve the grid stability problem, you might not need to build as big battery plants, as you would to solve long term total power output problems. Placing a battery per windmill, would ensure the distribution network voltages, never deviated more than the controller wants. Putting large banks at key nodes in the grid, could solve spinning reserve problems, but without the same degree of fine voltage control. Which would be implemented, depends on business details (price negotiation), as to which scheme gets built (even if one scheme is better than the other, maybe only one party wants to pay for it).

Using batteries for one day of output, or ten days of output, is an entirely different outlay of monies. And isn't likely to happen any time soon.

But if you want to augment grid stability, "nothing stops a battery". They can have instantaneous response (2 cycles). And you can have a mix of ultracaps and batteries, to make it stiffer. Supercaps generally have current flow limits, whereas some of the Ultracaps, have a 3000A rating, and the device does not look physically capable of handling such currents (without overheating). The inverter design is likely to be the limiting factor -- reliable inverters are hard to do.

Yebbut, the report is written by the network operator, who had planned to have more plants running that day and chose not to replace one which became unavailable (until they had a problem, and were told it would take hours).

Dealing with reactance means delivering current for maybe 20 ms

Its not required to deal with a wonky power factor

Except the insane cost of an already stupendously expensive and resource hungry renewable grid.

As I keep saying, a nuclear power station is, overall, simply cheaper. And less environmentally destructive

As an engineer you ought to have learnt cost benefit analysis

It's not the power factor that was the problem, it was the oscillations in grid frequency (and I think also voltage).

That needed several seconds worth.

Andy