[rcarmo]

Page 130 is where the actual human readable summary is. Although the previous pages were pretty detailed in explaining the cumulative instabilities.

Sadly, some news outlets are probably only going to look at the recommendations and read "cybersecurity" and (even though they are common sense recommendations) assume there might be more to say about the matter.

[decimalenough]

Don't worry, some news outlets will summarize this as "renewables = bad" regardless of what the report actually says.

Oh wait, they already did: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/06/18/renewable-en...

Ed: Do I need a /s tag here or something? My point was that we shouldn't worry too much about about the presentation of the report, its actual contents will be spun to suit any narrative regardless.

[kgwgk]

That doesn’t really say “renewables bad”.

The report actually says that there was a drop in solar generation.

[baq]

Flame bait journalism is one of the things you can count on in any circumstance. If you replace that ‘renewables = bad’ with ‘politicians = idiots’ OTOH… sometimes the elected representatives should listen to unelected physicists and engineers. Grid stuff is one of those things.

[rsynnott]

I mean, that's the Telegraph; it's just not a serious newspaper these days. (Brexit really did a number on it; in the last decade or so it's gone from a right-wing but fairly normal broadsheet to just complete raving nonsense.)

[Nextgrid]

There's been a shit-ton of misinformation about cyberattacks within the first hour of the outage, and the public were unfortunately very receptive to it, so I guess they're trying to preempt those concerns?