In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In article , David H Wild
writes
I've not seen anything that suggested that the second failure was a
consequence of the first.

The National Grid press release says that the second fault was "the
backup failing". So I suppose the cable that failed after 7 seconds was
already broken, but no-one had noticed. Until it came to be used.

Whether you regard that failure as something you might describe as a
"consequence" of being put into use after the first fault or not, is
merely playing with words.

It's still very different from what happened in North America. Although New
York itself had power back on in less than a day, some places were without
power for two or three days.

--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | / Acorn StrongArm Risc_PC
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/

In article , Richard
Catlow writes
Strictly speaking Dinorwig was not designed as a backup generator, nor
is used as one, as it is powered from pumped hydro storage and thus
has a finite time from which it can provide useful energy conversion
before the head of water becomes exhausted.

These are all characteristics of a UPS.

I'm not sure how important it is to make a distinction between:

Generating capacity failing to cope because a power plant has
tripped

and

Generating capacity failing to cope because demand has step-
function increased.

The first is very much a "backup", but the second (without an identical
extra source of supply) would have caused the grid to fail.

Over to you.
--
"now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing"

In article , David Hansen
writes
Strictly speaking Dinorwig was not designed as a backup generator,

It would also be slightly difficult to claim that any such scheme is
a generator, because it consumes more electricity than it generates
(unless there has been a change in the laws of physics since I
studied the things).

Sometimes it generates, sometimes it soaks power up. Just like a UPS.
--
"now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing"

Richard Catlow wrote in message
om...

Well, I will have the facts at my fingertips upon my return to work
tomorrow.

That was on Sunday, its now Tuesday.

How about about following up your post with the real facts ;-)

Roger

In article , (David H
Wild) wrote:

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In article , David H Wild
writes
I've not seen anything that suggested that the second failure was a
consequence of the first.

The National Grid press release says that the second fault was "the
backup failing". So I suppose the cable that failed after 7 seconds
was already broken, but no-one had noticed. Until it came to be used.

Whether you regard that failure as something you might describe as a
"consequence" of being put into use after the first fault or not, is
merely playing with words.

It's still very different from what happened in North America. Although
New York itself had power back on in less than a day, some places were
without power for two or three days.

12 hours for my brother-in-law in St Mary's Ontario.

--
Colin Rosenstiel