From the Iberian blackout to the future

A little over a week ago, the ENTSO-E (the European association of electricity transmission system operators) report on the April 28 blackout in the Iberian Peninsula was released. The detailed technical report, prepared by the association that brings together European operators similar to Portugal's REN, concludes that the event—the largest European blackout in over 20 years—was caused by a series of local and inter-area fluctuations in the Iberian electricity system. These fluctuations caused a voltage surge above operational limits, disconnection from the rest of the European system, and led to sudden losses of renewable generation (more than 2.5 GW in seconds), further exacerbating the phenomenon.

Managing the electrical system is like playing a crystal glass: you need to constantly maintain the frequency, ensuring that the sound is consistent and in tune with other glasses (neighboring and interconnected electrical systems). If there is a deviation in frequency, the glass stops vibrating correctly, ceasing to play or breaking. In these moments of deviation (due to oscillations that caused a voltage spike), the connection between the glasses is intentionally cut to prevent the error from propagating or several glasses from entering resonance (amplifying poorly damped natural oscillations) and breaking. In the April event, this cascading electrical failure affected Portugal and Spain and was preventable in the rest of the European system.

And what does the electrical system need to avoid these oscillations? Continuing with the metaphor: it needs the hand touching the glass to maintain its speed. This is ensured by inertia (a kind of steady hand that resists sudden changes in rotation speed), voltage regulation (in which the hand, being less steady, can respond very quickly to any observed deviation), or dynamic control (in which each hand can act quickly to correct deviations or isolate faults in case of divergence). All of this is necessary to maintain the sound of the crystal glass constant. This is where the system failed last April (low inertia, limited grid monitoring, and insufficient dynamic control mechanisms). But this is also where the path must be followed, learning from vulnerability and maintaining the path of greater renewable penetration – essential for greater energy independence and a vehicle for economic development.

The study concludes that it is necessary to ensure greater resilience of the electrical system —in the original, physical sense of the word: the ability of a body to recover its original shape after suffering shock or deformation. Among the measures required for an increasingly renewable system—a partial cause of the blackout—are improvements in voltage regulation, coordination between stakeholders (centralized/distributed producers and grids, in AC or DC), increased responsiveness of defense systems, and integration of technologies such as storage, advanced inverter control, and predictive management.

It's true that all of this entails a significant cost for the system, in terms of technology and infrastructure, such as strengthening the transportation network, modernizing protection systems, increasing operator responsiveness, and providing adequate compensation for stability and backup services. It's true that this will entail a cost that must be incorporated fairly into the production cost, which doesn't guarantee the system's robustness. And it's true, as João Galamba pointed out recently, that an interconnected system like the Iberian needs to ensure equal or at least compatible technical requirements and system incentives.

Thus, with the high penetration of intermittent renewables, we can no longer evaluate and compare generation technologies solely based on their LCOE (the average cost of producing a unit of energy over its useful life, considering costs and revenues). This indicator does not reflect the real cost of maintaining a robust electricity system or even other costs assessed from a holistic perspective (such as grid costs, security of supply, or environmental costs—something well explored in this article ).

However, I'm certain that doing nothing has even higher costs, whether by prolonging the country's historical dependence on energy imports, by maintaining less environmentally favorable solutions, or by compromising the country's competitiveness, denying it an opportunity for development and affirmation. The Government recognizes this in its program (Priority Axis VIII) , indicating the competitiveness and reliability of the electricity system as "a way to sustain the attraction and establishment of new business investments."

In other words, the transformation of the electrical system entails a cost that must be taken into account. We need to understand the technological limitations and challenges when defining incentives or remuneration mechanisms. We need to design (technology-agnostic) strategies and options that reflect the gains and impacts on the electrical system and, simultaneously, on other social axes (such as job creation), environmental protection, water resilience, and other positive and negative externalities. And we need to understand that this competitiveness gives us autonomy and the capacity to attract investment in key areas such as data centers or electro-intensive industries (such as defense, aeronautics, automotive, synthetic fuels, or green steel).

We cannot remain attached to arguments that detract from the energy transition, as failing to transform the sector will have a much greater cost. A recent statement by a McKinsey partner states that Portugal, thanks to the energy transition, could aim to double its GDP in 15 years —which corresponds to an average annual growth rate of 4.75% (which contrasts with the approximately 1% rate over the last 25 years).

Do we really want to waste this opportunity?