By Jo Nova
What a bomb to drop in the last days before the Australian election
Tony Blair, Photo by Piaras Ó Mídheach/Web Summit via Sportsfile
The aggressive climate action of the Australian Labor Party is suddenly wildly far out on a branch.
There are council elections in the UK, and Nigel Farage’s party is “expected to make large gains”. So as Ed Cummings in The Telegraph describes it, Tony Blair, former Prime Minister, “chose this moment to lob a large grenade”.
Blair is possibly the first person within the Blob to say what skeptics have been saying for years, as if he thought of it all by himself. He’s pulling the pin on the idea that “Net Zero” is sensible, possible, and essential, but this is no mea culpa — more like an escape plan. The populist parties are rising across Europe, grids are falling, and the failures of the Left are becoming too obvious.
Watch the pea — on the one hand, it’s good that an influential figure on the Left is saying that Net Zero is “riven with irrationality” and “unworkable” and “doomed to fail” but he’s tacitly pretending the left have figured this out by themselves and are victims of the namecalling they started. The namecalling that has been their greatest weapon, and his remarks have made it to the Sydney Morning Herald today:
A political tide is turning across Europe, and at its centre is a hard truth
— by Rob Harris, The Sydney Morning Herald
In Britain, Sir Tony Blair’s sharp critique of the government’s net zero strategy this week marks a watershed moment for green policy debate. The former Labour prime minister, who has been quietly advising Downing Street, accused politicians of pushing unrealistic and politically unsustainable climate agendas.
“People are being asked to make financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle when they know that their impact on global emissions is minimal,” Blair said in a foreword to a new report from his think tank released on Tuesday.
This is a remarkable admission. The Blob have ostracized and ruthlessly punished anyone who stepped outside the line. It’s been their substitute for rational argument for thirty years:
According to Blair, the political elite is paralysed by a climate discourse he described as “riven with irrationality”. He argued that many leaders know the current approach is unworkable but are “terrified” of voicing that view for fear of being labelled climate change deniers. “The movement now needs a public mandate, attainable only through a shift from protest to pragmatic policy,” he said.
This big shift has been forced upon them by Donald Trump, by Nigel Farage, and belatedly the UK Conservative party. Above all, it’s been forced upon them by reality. The shocking price rises, the blackouts, the crippling loss of industrial power — and now finally, the rise of powerful political opposition in the UK. But this is not a reconciliation with reality, there is no acknowledgement the Left got anything wrong, or the “deniers” were right all along. There are no lessons being learned here. It is their escape hatch.
In The Foreward, he says people are turning away from politics (meaning Labour politics).
People know that the current state of debate over climate change is riven with irrationality. As a result, though most people will accept that climate change is a reality caused by human activity, they’re turning away from the politics of the issue because they believe the proposed solutions are not founded on good policy.
So, in developed countries, voters feel they’re being asked to make financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle when they know that their impact on global emissions is minimal.
It’s about The Backlash
The Paris agreement failed because of Covid and the War in Ukraine, you know:
Therefore, there has been a period where climate-change action and global agreements, notably the Paris Agreement in 2015, seemed to herald a new era; but that momentum has been followed – exacerbated by external shocks like Covid and the Ukraine war – by a backlash against such action, which threatens to derail the whole agenda.
However, because of the levels of growth and development, present policy solutions are inadequate and, worse, are distorting the debate into a quest for a climate platform that is unrealistic and therefore unworkable.
And though action by the developed world is still vital, by 2030 almost two-thirds of global emissions will come from China, India and South-East Asia. Yet the global financial flows for renewable energy in the developing world have fallen and not risen in the past few years.
It’s not the end of coal and oil:
These are the inconvenient facts, which mean that any strategy based on either “phasing out” fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail.
But this is not good news for Wind and Solar power. They may have just been thrown under the bus.
The Climate Paradox: Why We Need to Reset Action on Climate Change, by Tony Blair (Click to download the report).
This is a Big Blob document
But make no mistake, in the conclusions he’s still calling for the ultimate Blob wet dream — he wants weather control with geoengineering and that will need global governance:
Actions to address the climate-change challenge must include:
-
-
-
-
Accelerating and scaling technologies that capture carbon, together with significant investment and acceleration of engineered permanent carbon-dioxide-removal technologies, including direct air capture (DAC) solutions.
-
Harnessing the power of technologies, including AI, to streamline and speed up both climate mitigation and adaptation.
-
Investing in breakthrough and frontier energy solutions to ensure future generation can be clean.
-
Scaling nature-based solutions in order to buy time for more systemic solutions.
-
-
-
In the most extreme case, in which we fail to make significant progress on decarbonisation, the world may need to seriously consider solar radiation management (SRM), a technology generally considered a last resort for addressing global warming. One of the most radical and controversial forms of disruption, SRM involves the direct manipulation of the Earth’s climate system to counteract global warming through techniques aiming to reflect sunlight away or limit the radiation that reaches the Earth. While highly controversial, such technologies may become necessary if mitigation efforts fail to prevent catastrophic climate shifts. …
Because the impacts of SRM are likely to be global and unequally felt, the world needs a robust governance framework to ensure its equitable and ethical use. This framework could mirror past efforts at limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
There is currently significant risk that a single country could move ahead unilaterally with this technology at scale, resulting in extreme weather effects that transcend national borders. As such, political leaders globally should progress with urgency a governance framework. The potential for unintended consequences such as regional climate disruptions or unforeseen ecological impacts, including risks from sudden temperature rise on the ceasing of SRM activities, underscores the importance of international cooperation and oversight, and makes this intervention the most disruptive of technological options.
Finally — In Part 7. “Rethinking the Role of Finance, Including Philanthropy”, free men and women of the world will want to know Tony Blair wants to harness the power of philanthropic funding, and one of the successes he mentions is this:
One good example of the power of philanthropic investment is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s investment in mRNA vaccine technology – years before the Covid-19 pandemic.
That’s just in case you were wondering if Tony Blair was still an active part of the Global Blob — The Billionaires, the United Nations Bureaucrats, the Davos Ski Club, and the largest corporate leaders in the world. He is.
The Labour Party are facing a fire. Think of Blair’s work as “backburning”.
He can burn off Net Zero Targets, wind and solar, and Ed Milliband, but he still gets the UN global Power Structure, and he might dig the Labour party out of a big hole (while digging a different hole).
h/t TdeF and OldOzzie, GWPF
.jpg){kind=link}
Meanwhile, here in the Stupid Country, Australia, leader of the “opposition” Dutton reaffirmed his belief in “climate change” and commitment to the Paris Accords.
He obviously wants to remain leader of the opposition and not become PM.
230
It does look like the Colonies are a bit behind the tide in Europe, eh?
210
The Australian is at least trying to discuss Pandora’s Box
The mega blackout that should keep all of us awake
In just five seconds, a power grid supplying nearly 60 million people collapsed. Spain in 2025 is a flashing warning light for the electricity system we’re building around weather-dependent generation.
Chris Uhlmann
Europe’s epic power blackout a warning for our own leaders
A fierce ideological battle between renewables and nuclear power. A spat over energy security. And a bid to cut the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels as the country works to meet the Paris climate accord.
This week’s power blackout in Spain has reignited a deep political divide over the nation’s energy future. And offered a timely reminder to Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton over the perils of any slip-up when it comes to keeping the lights on.
PERRY WILLIAMS
The Australian Daily Cartoon – Spooner
The Australian Editorial
Making a Spanish omelette of renewable energy push
Spain has been plunged into darkness, Germany is gripped by yet another wind drought and former British prime minister Tony Blair has recanted on net zero as the chickens from the renewable energy transition come home to roost.
These events emphasise the seriousness of warnings in Australia that electricity system security risks are emerging faster than expected and that a detailed plan urgently is needed for how our national grid will operate without baseload power from coal.
The collapse of the Spanish electricity grid mirrors the system black event that occurred in September 2016 in South Australia, which stands as an early warning of the pitfalls awaiting those who put all their eggs in the renewable energy basket.
Smart Energy Council’s charity status is pure farce
The Australian Solar Energy Society Limited, also known as the Smart Energy Council, is a charity. It donates charitable funds to the Australian Labor Party.
The Charities Act 2013 states: “Promoting or opposing a political party or a candidate for political office” is a “disqualifying purpose”. It may seem obvious to the voter that the charity is a pro-Labor lobby. The issue with allegations of this nature is they confuse activity with purpose. For instance, if another political party were to propose policies aligned with the council’s objectives, they would presumably receive donations. Being a charity does not exclude political promiscuity.
Spain’s blackout is the first of the clean energy era
Solar energy was powering the grid in Spain and Portugal on Monday — until it wasn’t, leaving tens of millions without electricity.
This week’s blackout in Spain and Portugal confronted authorities with an unprecedented event: the first mass electrical outage on a grid largely powered by wind and solar energy.
Spanish officials said Tuesday they still didn’t know what caused the outage, which left much of the Iberian Peninsula without power for hours and disrupted everything from factories and trains to ATMs. Power supplies were largely back to normal by Tuesday morning.
The moments before the blackout, at around 12:30pm. Monday, were a window into Europe’s energy future, dominated by emissions-free but fluctuating generation. Spain’s electrical grid was humming with solar power — nearly 60% of total generation — on a largely cloudless day. Wind turbines provided another 9%. Wind and solar were so abundant that electricity prices were pushed into negative territory.
MATTHEW DALTON
Renewables in spotlight after Spain and Portugal blackout
Spain’s drive to net zero, and sudden surges of solar power, have been blamed for the widespread blackout that caused complete chaos across the country on Monday.
Trains stopped in tunnels, people were trapped in lifts, shoppers went on a panic buying spree – if they had cash, as credit cards and other electronic payment methods failed to work – the internet went down and mobile phones failed, as the country lost all electricity.
The outage extended to Portugal and parts of France and it wasn’t until Tuesday evening, some 30 hours after the dramatic switch off that much of the power was turned back on.
Red Eléctrica, the network operator in Spain, said the widespread blackout happened after two disconnections, believed to be at solar farms in the southwest of the country, occurred within 90 seconds of each other, but the system failure was much shorter.
.
JACQUELIN MAGNAY
10
What is a career policeman to do when scientists, academics, bureaucrats and more jointly protect their positions and income by agreeing to the mandate put in place by the UN IPCC ? It is time to wake up to the obvious – the UN/WEF is promoting fear in the population in order to gain control over them and introduce “One World Government” ie Communism.
30
If Dutton wanted to win, he’d need to oppose the GovTTT (Gang ov Thieves, Terrorists and Traitors), but Dutton, like all members of the Uniparty believes in appeasement!
Dutton is consigned to the opposition benches and likely readying himself to step aside after the upcoming fiasco on 3 May!
10
God save us from these stupid, stupid loudmouths. Although it looks likely that we Aussies will let the left wingers back in to do more damage. 🤬
100
This country needs more pain in order to come to its senses, if ever. Dutton , in my view doesn’t deserve to be PM and there is no one in the Liberals of any substance. So, if the masses want government to provide them with “freebies” they will find out the hard way. I’m so sorry for the hard working people and businesses.
80
I find it remarkable that Blair would change his mind about this.
He wouldn’t do it because he suddenly understood the position of climate realists and the actual science. He wouldn’t care about that. He’s a Leftoid politician after all.
So, what’s in it for him?
His share transactions need to be checked. Did he invest in coal or oil? (Not that that’s a bad thing, just hypocritical for a Leftist.)
I’m sceptical.
130
The Labour Party are facing a fire. Think of this as “backburning”.
He’s starting a small fire in the hope of saving the house.
(I’ll add that to the post.)
He can burn off Net Zero Targets, wind and solar, and Ed Milliband, but he still gets the UN global Power Structure, he digs the Labour party out of a big hole (while digging a different hole). Does that make sense?
200
The old Reset v Re-set Paradox:
Signed off by B.liar©️
As someone here previously pointed out, beware their forked-tongue language…
Re-set: set up again, replant, sharpen an edge
Reset (Old French): to receive stolen goods, to harbour a criminal or outlaw or their goods
Resetter: a receiver of stolen goods.
This gang of shysters proudly uses the word ‘reset’ to explain to we simples exactly what they’re doing to us and the planet – and it’s not healthy.
What’s the saying: switch and bait?
90
Remember the fresh faced Blair with the starry eyes – the new hope of British Labour. Now the fellow has found comfort in the Mother Church. Very well networked and taken seriously in some circles.
60
FWIW – I believe he is pivoting to new technologies. Look at the action list.
Renewables are done. Blair and his cronies can all see that. There is no future (the hoi polloi are onto them) in pursuing it further. The political situation in Britain has been the catalyst for releasing their plan, which I would bet has been formulated over the last couple of year.
The action list has the ‘new frontier’ of the climate change industrial complex.
Carbon capture, SRM and weather modification, investment in new energy technology and AI. That is where they want the money directed to, all areas they will conveniently control.
30
Changing sides to cover his own ass before the music stops in the game of musical chairs.
The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.
Frank Zappa
00
“Because the impacts of SRM are likely to be global and unequally felt, the world needs a robust governance framework to ensure its equitable and ethical use. ”
Sure… Lets have a vote on it!! None of this crap about one vote per country, each country gets the number of votes equal to its population, because after all, that is how many people will be affected by their global destruction.
While we are at it, amend the UN system to be the same, give the people that the West are saying are poor and under-represented some power!!
So, BRICS versus the West, how will that turn out?
50
BRICS agree that soft power is better than coercion, so on this issue they will look at suggestions pragmatically and pick the correct energy infrastructure. Net Zero is not their cross to bare.
30
Blair has figured out that nobody believes a word he says … and now he is trying reverse psychology to confuse people.
120
So the Labor party in Australia are calling the opposition Monty Burns from The Simpsons because they support nuclear power, while one of their own, Tony Blair, is trying to block out the sun, as Monty Burns did on The Simpsons. The irony.
90
Here are the relevant Simpsons video clips.
https://youtu.be/L3LbxDZRgA4
https://youtu.be/hjdMYyjnmks
It is claimed Simpson’s contains many prophecies which have come true. The blocking out the sun episodes occurred at least nine years ago (the date of the videos).
20
No prophecies involved, just a good grasp of human greed and stupidity. 😎
20
Politically, the biggest losers in any rewind of the Net Zero madness will be the Greens. Disingenuously, leftist parties (Labour in the UK, Labor here in Oz, etc) will pin the blame on the Greens for forcing them to go too far, too fast. They won’t back away from the climate change fraud of course; they’ll just say the Greens prevented them from transitioning to renewables at a more sensible pace. We may even learn that Albo was always a fan of nuclear. Surprise!
Sadly, too many people will buy the lies.
80
If we can overcome this Net Zero madness people involved in pushing it need to be prosecuted for their lies and malfeasance.
In Australia it’s hard to sue a politician for lying, that’s their profession.
But the CSIRO and BoM “scientists” and senior public serpents and hugely overpaid “consultants” who lied (and continue to do so) and ignored the actual science need to be prosecuted. They also took (and continue to take) taxpayer-funded research monies on the basis of their lies.
Their personal finances also need to be forensically scrutinised for payments for the lies that they spread on behalf of those that profit from the anthropogenic global warming [snip] through wind, solar, battery, hydrogen, CO2 sequestration and other taxpayer-funded subsidy harvesting schemes.
.
[Perhaps “tricks” might be a substitute. The altered character you used to get the snipped word through moderating suggests you had an idea it probably wasn’t suitable. 😉 – Raquel]
160
Yip, add them to the never never list which would put them at #6 of the list:
Enron
9/11
GFC
Voter fraud
Covid
Net Zero
00
“Limited hangout”- a tactic where only part of the truth is revealed, often used in espionage, perception management, and politics. This is one of those cases. Mr Blair uses very careful words and that happy, smiley presentation style that was so effective during his political reign. Fails to mention that AGW/MMCC is probably the biggest scam ever to occur in human history and that trillions of pounds/dollars have been wasted on a non problem. That scientists in his own country were uncovered intentionally rigging the climate data (Climategate) back in the 2000’s. Still, I suppose it’s better than nothing. Which is the conclusion that the creators of a “limited hangout” wanted you to get to anyway.
90
Yes, the Left knows and uses every trick in the book, don’t they?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout?wprov=sfla1
60
I thought “limited hangout” is where you take corrupt pollies into the street a few at a time and…y’know…
10
and not a tr ans woman in a bikini then?
10
The only opinion that matters is that from the left of course, and that’s why Blair’s comment is so very important to the SMH. Only the dictators get to decide your future. It really is a very clear window into the halls of power in that the cares and concerns of real people are of zero interest to the socialists who now control everything.
Albo however, who will probably hold the balance of power after the election thanks to the LNP’s utterly execrable election campaign, is a communist. That means a soft lefty like Blair will be ignored anyway, as we only take orders from proper commies.
30
With America out of the picture, the countries which are addicted to self destruction are few. Europe, 350 million. Canada 40 million. Australia & NZ 30 million. Who else cares? So 500 million at most and half of those disagree. So 6% of the world’s population legislate that we must stop using fossil fuels. No one else is so cosseted and ratbag and wrong. So 3% of the world’s population at most believe it. That’s about the % of subnormal people.
“The Science” is a complete farce, nonsense science. Replete with graphs of ancient temperatures and gases. Who cares? In the 37 years since 1988, I note the promoters of this ripoff have dropped the word ‘rapid’.
As for carbon dioxide being toxic, you are breathing it out now. And you are made from it, as is every living thing on the planet. The three essential molecules which drive life are CO2, O2 and H2O. And there is not enough CO2. But politicians and business types could no care less. It’s about the money. Trust me, I’m a politician.
80
More importantly, 94% of the producers of CO2 are doing nothing. But 6% are determined on economic and social suicide to save what exactly? In this Blair is stating the obvious. Don’t drink the Kool Aid.
Even if the whole thing were true, it makes no sense for Britain or Australia, a tiny 1.3% of the world population, to self destruct. And send all their cash to other countries for ‘Carbon Credits’. It’s past idiotic.
80
And it raises the very obvious question. Why? Who benefits? No one can even point out how this helps anyone? Certainly not the people in the countries being ravaged by Labor/Democrat/UN/EU legislated government carbon taxes and credits.
80
Say Australia had the CO2 output of 2005. Net Zero. Surely it is incumbent on politicians to explain this? I don’t care about the temperature in peak summer in the Sahara. How is anyone in Australia better off?
60
A number of of years ago NASA reported that the world had increased greening by 20% 20%, WTF!!!!!!! That’s an incredibly significant rise in anyone’s book. With data attributable to NASA, so is difficult to challenge. All due to the increased CO2 levels and its associated fertilizer effect. Why the world’s crop yields keep increasing , year after year. 20 % is probably the equivalent of 2 Australia’s worth of greening. Never a repeat mention of this good news in any of the media. Just imagine if the reverse had happened? It there had been a 20 % drop in greening it would be worldwide news- the lovely catastrophe big media like.
60
I examined that report carefully. The increase was close, 14%. And checked the increase in CO2 in the period, 1988 to 2014. Also 14%.
So increasing CO2 and you get more trees in exact proprition. Enough for all of North America again. Or Brazil.
The NAS group included a number of organization including our CSIRO. They played it down. ‘Fertilizer’. Trees are made from CO2. It is food not fertilizer.
Second, no one reported that growing trees did NOT reduce CO2. Rather more CO2 means more trees, the exact opposite of the world’s Carbon Credits, as legislated in Australia. And of course much more than alleged ‘deforestation’.
Here you have total proof that net zero is nonsense. That CO2 is independent of human or non human CO2 production or consumption. That trillions of tons of sequestered CO2 makes no difference to atmospheric CO2 and so CO2 levels are a physical constant. A vapour pressure of CO2 98% dissolved in the world’s oceans.
Without even being a scientist, this report debunks the whole man made CO2 build up story. And the idea that anyone can control CO2. So goodbye carbon credits, Green hydrogen, and the whole windmill/solar panel thing. But only 5% of the world believes this stuff anyway. Tony Blair points out that it does not make sense. He’s right.
60
That NASA report.
This hard data alone should have been the end of carbon credits, CO2 build up from fossil fuels, man controllable CO2, sequestration. And it could not be hidden as it was a joint project. So it has been ignored, played down. And tree farms shares sold in the UK.
And Universities are pushing the false information.
“Tree planting can be the most cost-effective way of removing carbon as long as careful choices are made about which type of trees to plant and where.
Governments worldwide have committed to expand tree cover to remove greenhouse gases, with the UK committing to plant 30,000 hectares of trees each year until 2050.”
10
Thank God for America under Trump. Without American support and know how any “global framework” to geoengineer is doomed to failure. I hope they pull the pin on the UN.
00
The latest weekly data for atmospheric CO2 concentration measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, University of California, USA, varied from 316.2 parts per million CO2 on 29 March 1958 to 427.9 ppm on 05 April 2025. It increased at a steadily increasing rate of 0.705 ppm pa over the 5 year period March 1958 to 1963 to a rate of 2.548 ppm pa over the 5 year period April 2020 to April 2025 which is an increase by a factor of 3.61 times. Superimposed on the trend is a consistent seasonal variation driven by the annual changes in climate through Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter reflecting the changes in energy received from the Sun during the Earth’s annual orbit around the Sun.
This reveals that the human endeavor to reduce the CO2 concentration with Solar Panels and Wind Farms has not made any change whatsoever to the regular pattern produced by Nature. Net Zero has been a complete failure over the 67 years of data collection. The only irregularities apparent in the data are the volcanic eruptions at Mount Agung, Bali in 1963, Mount Pinatubo, Philippines in 1991 and Kilaueu, Hawaii in 2018 otherwise it was Nature that determined the CO2 concentration through life forms be they animal, vegetable or microbial.
Having spent billions of dollars on Solar Panels and Wind Farms they will now have to be removed at added expense so that the natural processes can return to the damaged environment.
40
Yes, but “otherwise it was Nature that determined the CO2 concentration through life forms be they animal, vegetable or microbial.”
CO2 in animal, vegetable or microbial sinks is negligible. CO2 existed long before life on earth. 98% of the atmosphere of Venus is CO2.
But on earth the combination of CO2, H2O and sunlight created carbo hydrates and this was the energy source for all living things, hydrated carbon dioxide.
It is odd that living things are supposed to control CO2 when CO2 far predated living things, by billions of years. And CO2, H2O gases are in huge supply, like water as a gas, not liquid. These gases are in constant exchange with the vast oceans, evaporating and condensing. Like us, fish breathe. As does every living thing from fungi to blue whaltes. In fact water as a gas (humidity) is 1% to 4% of the atmosphere, vastly bigger than atmospheric CO2 at only 0.042%. And H2O vapour is a far more powerful Greenhouse gas with a very wide absorption spectrum where CO2 is very narrow.
But I would love someone to prove CO2 is NOT in constant, rapid, world wide equilibrium, which is what any scientist would expect. And long before anyone decided that tiny annual CO2 output, 0.02% of total CO2 is having a devastating effect. Because none of it is true.
We could not change CO2 levels if we tried. I do not see Mt Pinaturbo at all in 1991 with CO2 viewed from NZ. In fact there is no evidence that anything affects CO2.
You are right that we cannot change CO2. And that CO2 is the alleged problem, not ’emissions’. But who cares? It’s a hoax.
00
This is the perfect opportunity for Dutton (he had it also when Trump pulled out of Paris) to promise to scrap Net Zero, citing Tony Blair for support.
Bet he doesn’t.
Too scared to do it.
20
It may also be that he is loathe to kill off a very, very lucrative gravy train that he and his mates want to continue getting rich from, just like most politicians.
20
How the Lights Went Out in Spain
The country flew too close to the sun—which is to say it relied too heavily on unreliable solar power.
By Gabriel Calzada and Manuel Fernández Ordóñez
Life changed for Spaniards at noon on Monday.
With the sun at its peak, the country’s largely solar-powered electrical grid shut down. Mere days before, Spain’s government had announced that its grid had for the first time run entirely on renewable power, with new records set almost daily for solar. Breathless declarations of victory flowed, in service of the government’s promise to phase out reliable nuclear power plants with many years of remaining service life. As in Germany, this promise is now the Spanish politicians’ nightmare.
In only a few minutes, Spain and Portugal (whose grid and energy policies are interconnected) went dark, along with parts of France. The Spanish government discovered modesty, but only temporarily. By Tuesday Socialist President Pedro Sánchez was blaming private industry.
The stability of an electrical grid depends on a balance maintained through synchronous generation using turbines that store energy in their rotating generators. These generators provide inertia that can stabilize the grid if the network load exceeds the capacity of connected power plants—or in the opposite case, if there’s excess generation.
The greater the share of renewables vis-à-vis conventional power plants with synchronous turbines, the less inertia there is to cushion instantaneous load fluctuations in the grid. The system becomes increasingly fragile, with higher risk of failure.
At the time of the disaster, Spain’s near-record percentage of solar-energy production was accompanied by a smaller amount of wind—neither of which are capable of stabilizing the system if needed. The grid was also running with a low share of turbine-based generation—around 30%. Low inertia meant playing with fire (or, more accurately, with the sun, given that Spain’s policymakers minimized thermal generation).
00