Cause of massive power cut that plunged Spain and Portugal into chaos revealed
The massive power cut that plunged huge swathes of Spain and Portugal into chaos earlier this year was caused by a miscalculation, the Spanish government has said.
Airports, trains and internet were among the services , with traffic lights also down - causing huge tailbacks.
Millions of people were affected and parts of the two countries were brought to a standstill as authorities raced to find the source of the problem.
There was discussion about whether a cyberattack was to blame, but today Spain's energy minister said the issue was a miscalculation by the Spanish power grid operator REE.
Sara Aagesen said REE did not have enough thermal power stations switched on during peak hours of April 28 when the surge caused a chain reaction leading to the power outage.
"The system did not have sufficient dynamic voltage control capacity," she said.
Read more from Sky News:
The government report, which was due to be made public on Tuesday, found that some of the power plants required by law to regulate the grid's voltage failed to do so.
Electricity grids in Europe are kept at 50 Hertz frequency in order to maintain stability - and even a slight deviation can lead to damage.
Power plants "should have controlled voltage and, moreover, many of them were economically remunerated to do so. They did not absorb all the reactive power that was expected in a context of high voltages," Ms Aagesen said.
The investigation found no evidence of a cyberattack, she added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
EU chief agrees with Trump on China trade issues, declares ‘Donald is right'
Print Close By Emma Colton Published June 17, 2025 European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen found some mutual understanding with President Donald Trump during the G7 conference, declaring "Donald is right" about China's certain trade policies. "When we focus our attention on tariffs between partners, it diverts our energy from the real challenge — one that threatens us all," von der Leyen said during a meeting at the G7, which included Trump's attendance before his abrupt departure back to Washington, D.C., on Monday, Politico reported. "On this point, Donald is right — there is a serious problem," she added, referring to China ignoring global trade rules. Von der Leyen was referring to China's restrictions on raw material exports needed for cars, batteries and wind turbines, with the European Commission chief accusing China of "weaponizing" its ability to produce critical raw materials while icing out competitors. Specifically, China restricted its exports of permanent magnets globally back in April, when Trump rolled out his reciprocal tariff plan that aimed to bring parity to the U.S.' chronic trade deficit. G7 SUMMIT OPENS IN CANADA, WITH LEADERS TO ADDRESS TRADE, WARS WHILE HOPING TO AVOID CLASH WITH TRUMP China has focused on "undercutting intellectual property protections, massive subsidies with the aim to dominate global manufacturing and supply chains. This is not market competition — it is distortion with intent," von der Leyen said, while also warning against "a new China shock" as the country floods the global market with inexpensive subsidized products, Politico reported. GERMANY'S MERZ TO 'ADAPT' TO TRUMP DURING HIGH-STAKES MEETING ON TARIFFS, DEFENSE Von der Leyen has previously traded barbs with Trump, including over trade in April, when she warned "global markets are shaken by the unpredictable tariff policy of the U.S. administration." Ahead of the June summit in Canada, the EU leader reported on X that she had an overarching and "good call" with Trump. "Good call with President Trump ahead of the G7 Summit," she posted on X Saturday. "We discussed the tense geopolitical situation in the Middle East as well as the need for close coordination on the impact on energy markets. We also discussed the situation in Ukraine, the imperative for a ceasefire and the need to keep up pressure on Russia. Finally, we took stock of the ongoing trade talks. I reiterated our commitment to reach a good deal before July 9." The EU leader's remarks were made before Trump abruptly departed the summit Monday, following a day of meetings. The G7 summit, Trump's first under his second administration, kicked off Monday morning and will run through Tuesday in a remote ski town in Alberta, Canada. Upon his trip back to the capital, Trump told the media that the EU had not offered a fair trade deal, adding that, "They're either going to make a good deal, or they'll just pay whatever we say they have to pay." Trump has previously threatened imposing tariffs up to 50% on all EU imports if a trade deal is not reached by July. The summit was expected to focus on trade, the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, and tensions in the Middle East. However, emphasized focus was placed specifically on Israel and Iran after Israel launched preemptive strikes on Iran Thursday evening after months of attempted and stalled nuclear negotiations and subsequent heightened concern that Iran was advancing its nuclear program. The two nations have continued trading deadly strikes since, with Trump abruptly ending his trip to Canada and heading back to Washington, D.C., while warning on Truth Social, "IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!" TRUMP, RUBIO CUTTING G7 TRIP SHORT, RETURNING TO DC AS CHATTER INDICATES IRANIANS FLEEING TEHRAN When asked why Trump abruptly left the G7, he told the media on Tuesday, "I don't believe in telephones," adding that "being on the scene is much better." "And we did everything I had to do at the G7. We had a good G7," Trump added. Trump is expected to report to the Situation Room at the White House as tensions flare between Israel and Iran. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Fox News Digital reached out to the European Commission for any additional comment on von der Leyen's remarks Monday but did not immediately receive a reply. Print Close URL
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
A jab from 33,000 feet cools Trump–Macron ties, but is it just a passing frost?
PARIS — What began with a handshake evolved into turbulence at 33,000 feet as one of diplomacy's oddest relationships took another strange turn. The political chemistry that once defined the Trump–Macron dynamic — immortalized by a famously tense 29-second handshake in 2017 — was nowhere to be seen in midair Tuesday when U.S. President Donald Trump blasted his French counterpart on social media.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Coal power plants were paid to close. Is it time to do the same for slaughterhouses?
The food industry will go to great lengths (and spend a fortune) to lobby policymakers, confuse the public and politicise scientific findings. You can see the results in the UK's delay of a ban on junk food advertisers targeting children, or the orchestrated backlash to a report that recommended cutting red meat consumption and embracing more plant-based diets. It's a well-worn playbook. When scientific evidence indicates the need to phase down environmentally harmful or unhealthy products, the responsible industry pushes back. Motivating this resistance, my colleagues and I believe, is something rarely discussed in the context of food systems: stranded assets. These are investments that lose value or stop generating revenue earlier than their owners and investors anticipated, due to changes in market conditions, technology or – of particular interest here – policy and regulation. This concept has been central to debates in the energy transition. For example, studies have shown that keeping global warming below 2 °C will require leaving fossil fuels in the ground and shutting down power plants before they've generated a return on investment, wiping off about US$1 trillion (£736 billion) in value for companies, financial institutions and investors. The same dynamic applies to the task of feeding everyone well and without substantial environmental harm. What we produce must change, as well as how we produce it. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. Producing animal-sourced protein, especially beef and dairy, has environmental impacts that dwarf those of plant-based protein. Some new technologies may reduce these impacts, particularly feed additives to reduce methane emissions from cattle. But the negative impacts go far beyond cow burps to include deforestation, biodiversity loss, water scarcity and pollution. Beef in particular, even when produced using intensive systems like feedlots in the US, requires substantially more land to make 100 grams of protein than any other source (excluding lamb, which is produced in much lower quantities). As the global population increases and constraints on land use intensify, as much nourishing food as possible will need to be produced on as little land as possible. This will entail slashing the amount of land used for animal-sourced foods. However, companies consistently invest in the assets that produce, process, transport and store the foods we consume. These range from slaughterhouses to the grain silos and transport equipment for single-crop supply chains, to manufacturing plants and the research and development of ultra-processed foods. In order to curtail certain foods, as part of a global shift towards sustainable and healthy diets, these assets cannot generate the revenue they do now. This means writing off some of the capital that has been sunk into them, and any anticipated revenue. Our research identified £217 billion that has been invested in meatpacking plants, for example. A portion of this will be lost in service of a shift to more plant-based sustenance. Whether or not policymakers and researchers are aware of the stranded assets problem, food companies certainly are. We outline three things that need to happen. First, while it is laudable that companies set targets to cut emissions or deforestation, how they invest their money is not always consistent with these goals. Companies need to disclose to investors and the public which of their assets are incompatible with a sustainable future, and how they plan to phase them out. Second, lenders (typically banks) and investors (asset managers and their clients) must work with the companies they fund to manage these transitions rather than simply revoke financing or divest. Shutting down a meatpacking plant and building up a plant-based protein business is costly, and firms will need support. Divestment can play an important role symbolically, signalling an ethical and moral stance against certain activities. But unless it is done by all investors at once, assets like shares go to other buyers with little or no interest in sustainability. Third, and perhaps the thorniest problem, who pays for stranded assets? The money has already been spent. The investments have been made, the meatpacking plants and infrastructure already built, the anticipated revenue and maximised profit margins already embedded in the value of these companies. There is the cost of shutting down assets early as well as the opportunity cost of not making money that was expected from capital that has already been sunk. Who bears those costs? Many assume the answer is straightforward: the polluter should pay. This is certainly possible to achieve. Take the recent ruling in Germany, which determined that private companies can be held liable for their share in causing climate damages. But implementing this principle requires unusually strong political leadership and sustained public support. Both of these things are difficult to secure, particularly in food systems where industry lobbying is intense, livelihoods are at stake, public attention is fragmented and diets are highly personal and easily politicised. Even when policies designed to improve public health or sustainability are passed, they can be easily rolled back. Which brings us to an uncomfortable alternative: paying the polluter. This approach already exists in other sectors. Since 2020, Germany has paid coal plants to retire early. The same has been done in the Netherlands, parts of the US and several other countries. In the Netherlands, the government paid farmers to reduce dairy herds in certain areas in order to hit pollution targets. Paying off food companies to phase out harmful assets sounds like a bailout and feels unfair, since a clean and thriving environment is a human right. Such an approach could only work if it allowed stronger regulation that ensured such pollution wouldn't occur in the future. This is how abolitionists contributed to ending slavery in the UK. If we're stuck between endless policy whiplash and slow-motion climate and health crises, paying the polluter may be worth considering. It's politically fraught and emotionally frustrating, but when it comes to stopping pollution sooner rather than later, it is perhaps more tractable than waiting for political will, corporate courage and public consensus to converge. Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation's environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who've subscribed so far. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Stephanie Walton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
