View Full Version : More Support For the Smart-Grid
There have been some large power outages (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/valentines-day-power-outage.html) and multiple small ones in just the past few days that were caused by Mylar balloons drifting into power lines. I'm really wondering what it takes for the powers that be to realize how vulnerable our power grid is...and how much we depend on it. Same can be said for railways, highways, bridges, internet, communication systems...
loosechickens
2-15-12, 11:31pm
we have a friend with intimate knowledge of the electrical grids in this country, and we'd all FAINT if we realized how held together by spit and rubber bands the various regional grids truly are. We are never more than a few minutes from disaster, with multiple areas of vulnerability, should the most mundane of accidents happen. When a squirrel being electrocuted can cause cities to go black, or cyberterrorism could bring down large segments of our electricity, not to mention other infrastructure, we are really in trouble. It's a constant dance, from minute to minute, keeping the electricity on, with much more danger of imminent collapse than any realize.
we have deferred improvements to infrastructure to the point where the systems of everything are in bad shape. It's bad. Truly bad.
I work closely with several large utilities. I'm not in a position to see any sensitive internal communication regarding how fragile the grid is, but do have the chance to talk with quite a few people who are. With what I hear LC has it exactly right. Cyber-terrorism and/or more low tech guerrilla type attacks are a very real threat, but a lot of the folks I've talked to think a spring thunderstorm that brings down a few branches can cause just as much havoc. Most people have no idea how dependent we really are on our regular supply of electricity. Food, finance, transportation, communication...our access to all that and more relies on the power grid at least in part. Hollywood could not script a disaster waiting to happen any better.
loosechickens
2-23-12, 9:42pm
I saw this today on www.americablog.com , Gregg, and thought about this thread.....some interesting stuff here, and a take I've never seen expressed before, but intriguing...I put it out as food for thought:
"Anonymous" and the real threat to the power grid
By Myrddin on 2/23/2012 04:55:00 PM
According to reports, Gen. Keith Alexander, the head of the NSA recently briefed the President on a possible attack on the US power grid by the hacker collective 'Anonymous'.
These reports have been taken as an excuse for ridicule of purported 'fear-mongering'. Apparently on the basis that those Anonymous types must be good guys, they tell us so.
I don't work for the NSA but I have worked in the civil field for twenty years and I know quite a bit about the way the NSA works. The idea that Alexander would give a warning limited to attacks by anonymous is nonsense. Hactivism has been a factor in information security for decades. The real development in recent years has been the emergence of attacks by state actors and their proxies.
Iran believes (and not without cause) that the US was behind the Stuxnet attack on their uranium enrichment plant. It does not take much imagination to think that they might attempt retaliation. Nor is Anonymous the only hacktivist group in existence. There are hundreds, thousands of similar groups around the world.
The underlying problem here that nobody disputes is that the US power system is vulnerable to cyber attack. The network protocols used in process control systems have not changed since they were developed in the late 1970s and none of them have security controls built in. This is worrying enough if you want to use a PID controller to cook your dinner sous-vide: an attacker can now reprogram your set point temperature and give you botulism. But the exact same systems are in use in power plants round the country, including nuclear plants.
The possibility of a successful attack against the power grid is not in serious dispute, what is open for debate is the extent of the likely consequences.
According to one school of thought, an attack on the power system would lead to the collapse of civilization within three months. I have been in meetings where the argument has been made that the response to an attack on the power grid should be to suspend the constitution and declare martial law. My view is that like J. Edgar Hoover, such people are a greater threat to the republic than the enemies they purport to protect us against.
A more realistic assessment of the likely consequences would be that they are serious but the risk of over-reaction is even more so. The actual consequences of 9/11 were bad but the consequences of the Bush administration response were far worse. A cascade outage in the power system could kill hundreds of people but using the event as a pretext to declare martial law would lead to civil war.
Another view, one that I think is under-considered in US policy circles is the possibility that the real threat to the US might come from an attack on the power system in another country.
Take China for example. The possibility of a war between the US and China is very remote because the two countries are far apart and there is really no incentive for either to get into a territorial dispute with the other. China understands the US position on Taiwan just as the US understands the Chinese position on North Korea. The chance of either leading to war is as remote as the possibility of the UK going to war with Spain over Gibraltar.
The possibility of war between China and Russia is much less remote and such a war would be a global catastrophe. Part of the legacy of the collapse of the Soviet Union is the tangle of remnant states bordering the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea are largely unfamiliar to us. Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor under Carter, has called this region the Global Balkans. It is an apt name for an area that like the former Yugoslavia has yet to properly complete the transition from the Soviet system and where ethnic rivalries are stoked for political ends. Some of the ethnic groups are Russian, others are Han Chinese. There is a real risk that some crisis in the Global Balakans might lead to Russian or Chinese intervention and possibly war between Russia and China.
One possible scenario for such a conflict is that Russia (or China if you prefer) decides it must intervene and launches a 'digital Pearl Harbor' attack against China to ensure that it is otherwise occupied. Like the US power system, the Chinese power system uses 1970s control protocols such as MODBUS which lack security controls like authenticating the source of command signals. Unlike the US, China is in no position to fix this problem having relied on copied and stolen technology for decades.
Why is this a problem for the US? Well first a war between Russia and China would be a global catastrophe and could even lead to a world war. But also, if you are a Chinese strategist facing this particular problem your security options are rather limited. There is really no time to develop the necessary engineering design skills and then apply them to a new generation of control systems infrastructure which might be deployable in 2030 or so. If I was facing that particular problem I would take a completely different approach and seek to turn my problem into someone else's problem. For example, by hacking the US and Western countries power systems forcing them to come up with technology that I could then steal and apply to my own infrastructure.
In conclusion, this is precisely the type of security issue that I would want security advisors such as Alexander to be thinking about and discussing with the President because that reduces the risk of the type of panicked reaction that led to disaster under the Bush administration
What a bunch of nonsense.
ApatheticNoMore
2-24-12, 12:48am
What a bunch of nonsense.
+1
I don't actually see the point here either. Confusing article. What did you see there, L.C.? (maybe I'm just being thick....hey, it happens :) )
It's an interesting approach, but I don't think the likelihood of war between Russia and China is very high and the overall conspiracy theory in the article just has too many variables to be plausible. Regarding cyber attacks it seems something like an Iranian sponsored group launching an attack on US systems (power, financial, transportation...) is a lot more feasible. There's probably no shortage of Iranian patriots with the knowledge of how to pull it off and it wouldn't take a tremendous amount of resources to get going.
I've heard that one monster attack that attempts to wipe out the whole grid may not be our greatest vulnerability. That might instead come from multiple smaller attacks, a combination of physical and cyber, that take down portions of the grid and disrupt commerce and daily life in different places at different times. It would be more like fighting off a couple dozen mosquitoes than fighting off a bully. The bites wouldn't kill you, but they would constantly annoy you, antagonize you and after a while would divert your attention from almost everything else. There's no way to know where the next bite is coming from (the point of a guerrilla approach). You can swat and slap and you will get a a lot of the mosquitoes, but you can't get them all unless you launch an all out war and even then some will still get through.
I live in a town of almost 300,000 people. I've been told roughly 1/3 of the town gets power that is routed through a single, large sub-station. I've seen it and from what I saw the security doesn't involve much more than a tall chain link fence. Without even considering such things as cascade failures (a very real possibility) its easy to see how a single person, a "lone wolf", could do something as simple as toss a backpack bomb over the fence. Even if it was small and only brought down 10% of the capacity of that station that would still represent 10,000 people without power for an unknown duration. Of course it wouldn't all be homes. Banks, gas stations, grocery stores, office buildings including government offices, fire stations, water treatment plants, rail yard switching stations, anything that uses electricity could be randomly effected. I know almost nothing about cyber attacks and how they might work, but from what I have read it sounds like there is a chance they could cause more disruption than that hypothetical backpack bomb. If a terrorist group was to have 10 or 20 guys on the ground moving around the US and that many more sitting at their computers around the world it gets pretty easy to see how a series of small bites could have a big effect. I'm not sure we could isolate the damage or stop the attacks with our current grid technology.
loosechickens
2-24-12, 12:38pm
as I said, I just found it interesting, as it touched on the idea that such things are often far more complex than they look from the surface, and thoughts I'd not seen expressed before. It may well be nonsense, as bae says, and I don't know enough about Russian/Chinese relationships to know.
I tend to agree with Gregg, myself, and think that a combination of natural causes, and/or actions by a committed small number of folks determined on bringing down the system or large parts of the systems, is far more likely. I just was interested to see this idea being put forth, since we had just been discussing how vulnerable our electrical grids are in this thread, so threw it out. I'm not championing the thoughts of this guy, and don't even know anything about him, so have no way of knowing if he is well qualified to even HAVE an opinion.
We do know John Aravosis, a fellow Georgetown University School of Foreign Service grad, whose blog this guy put this piece on, so I doubt if he is totally off the wall, regards qualifications, or John wouldn't be giving him space on the blog, as if you've seen John discussing issues on CNN and elsewhere, he is, himself, very well qualified.
That said, only threw this in here to spark discussion of the many ways such vulnerabilities could be exploited, that's all.
I often wondered, after 9/11 why Al Qaeda didn't just send twenty guys, suicide bombers, around all over the country, blowing up people in WalMarts, etc., or targeting children in elementary schools. Remembering the absolute terror caused in the Washington D.C. area by the two guys who were driving around taking potshots from their car, murdering people, and how it caused huge disruption, with gas stations putting up barriers so that people filling their tanks could not be seen, etc., such targeted terrorism could have paralyzed our economy.
I finally came up with the fact that Al Qaeda preferred more "macho", I might call it, big bangs, so such acts wouldn't have been "big" enough for them, although in many ways, they might have brought the economy to a standstill even better than flying planes into buildings.
the whole point is, on this thread, that our electrical grids are held together with spit and rubber bands, are vulnerable to a domino effect where one squirrel encountering a transformer can throw large areas and hundreds of thousands of people into blackouts, and with plenty of chokepoints in the system where terrorism, or even bad luck, can bring the whole thing down. Most people just take electrical service for granted, and have no idea of how, literally minute to minute, it's a dance to keep the grid up, manage loads, and keep the lights on.
If Stuxnet was capable of doing the mischief it did to Iran's systems, what makes us think that Iran, or anyone else, wouldn't just as soon wage war, against Israel, us, or anyone else with cyberterrorism and wouldn't even need The Bomb?
I think Gregg makes an excellent point......and we take scissors away from Grandma on planes, make all of us take off our shoes, and meanwhile have electrical, rail, gas pipeline, water and other systems ripe for attack in many ways, whether by terrorists in person blowing things up, or by all those shadowy people sitting behind computers tapping keys and writing code.
Most people just take electrical service for granted...
That is really where it all begins LC. We DO take it for granted.
A few years back we had a similar discussion going here and I decided it would be good to at least show my family what it would be like if we lost power. Where we were living it was a real possibility from heavy winter storms so it seemed like a good idea to practice one time before it caught us for real. I don't want them to live in fear of being attacked or become anti-social preppers or anything like that. I was looking at it more along the lines of having a fire escape plan. On a Saturday morning I threw our main breaker and we were without power for the weekend. DW and the kids knew it was coming, but not when. I cheated to the extent that we had plenty of Coleman fuel, the fire was stoked up, all our camping gear was cleaned up and ready to go, we were stocked up on batteries and easy to cook food, the weather report was fairly mild, etc. In other words, I did all the things to get ready for it that we should have been doing anyway. We were comfortable and it was actually kind of a fun weekend, but it was also a success because it made all of us, including me, think how much we rely on power. We had quite a few discussions about what would happen with the grocery store and the gas stations and other parts of life that we all just assume will keep clicking along. Its a good thing to at least think about because it really doesn't take much of a disruption to make life very inconvenient or worse.
ApatheticNoMore
2-24-12, 1:22pm
You have hypothetical war gaming scenarios and then you have something that actually happened - Japan - massive earthquake - nuclear reactors - Fukushima (still spewing?). Actually happened. There is a silent video from Japan just showing the mutations of plants in the spring following the earthquake. It's um .. interesting .... and haunting ... and bizarre (here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM1uZ6AkYJs ).
Who knows how bad the situation is in Japan and how many will get sick (I don't, nuclear radiation may be less or more dangerous than anticipated and sadly it's not Japans first exposure), the produce at farms there is starting mutating to giant sizes as well
So if you want to ask what I'm more concerned about Iran hijacking the grid (and what evidence exists of this? any? any at all?), or the big one (a big earthquake) setting off a nuclear reactor spill? Um, it is the earthquake. And I see NO EVIDENCE of the government taking the earthquake threat seriously enough!! What is being done to make sure nuclear plants will withstand seismic activity? I dont' see anything being done. I see no evidence the government actually cares about proven threats to it's citizens (proven by the Japan experience).
But I'm asked to consider Iran or China or Russia hijacking the electrical grid. As if there weren't vested interests constantly trying to fill our minds with panic over what U.S. "enemies" could do. Always overblowing the threats. As if mentioning what the NSA says doesn't kind of make the argument suspect right there. And what if I were to suggest that if the fear is threat of attack that maybe the answer is decentralization? Seems to me centralized entities are open to terrorist attack, decentralized ones not so much. So maybe the answer is solar panals on everyone's roof. Maybe it's local (city) power generation if and where it makes sense. Etc.
From my limited understanding a smart grid can better accomidate selling power back to the grid (from home solar panels say). That's good. But as I understand it a smart grid also means more computerization of the grid. More computerization OPENS UP rather than closes the loophole for things to go wrong IMO, and no not a smart grid expert, just .... is your car more or less open to a computer virus when all it's functions are computer dependent? Etc. The thing about the article is that arguments like that always seem to mean in practice more police state measures. The fact that it's prattling on about cyber terrorism also raises red flags. Gah, I've had enough, I'm begging for mercy already, enough of the war on terror. I want to live in a free society, an open society, again ... and take my chances.
Indeed so, Apathetic.
"We've always been at war with Eastasia."
I think a lot of it is just distraction from the real problem - much of the grid is antiquated and needs to be upgraded.
Like having the issue of we need better fire alarms brought up over and over at a condo meeting when the real issue is all the wiring needs to be replaced.
Indeed so, Apathetic.
"We've always been at war with Eastasia."
With the saber-rattling in recent days about Iran, I've been wondering if those in power think that the U.S. simply can't function unless there's a war on.
Is it the external enemy they think we need, or do they think we'd spiral into a depression if we had to cut the defense budget?
I think it's the slippery slope argument. Obama has a pretty cool head and isn't as easily swayed as Bush was, but I guarantee you there is some general whispering in his ear, "Well, if this happens, then this or this will happen, and that leads to this other!" It's like that clever cable commercial that's running now. Don't wake up in a ditch, switch to this cable. Very funny.
I love that weekend practice drill you had! Working in healthcare, I've been part of emergency drills (and some real emergencies) several times. Nothing teaches us preparation like going through the motions together
It's like that clever cable commercial that's running now. Don't wake up in a ditch, switch to this cable. Very funny.
"Stop collecting stray animals" is a favorite of mine. No violence involved in that one.
I routinely lose electrical power where I live for several days at a time during the winter, sometimes for over a week, once for almost two weeks.
Life continued.
With the saber-rattling in recent days about Iran, I've been wondering if those in power think that the U.S. simply can't function unless there's a war on.
Is it the external enemy they think we need, or do they think we'd spiral into a depression if we had to cut the defense budget?
With regard to the grid I think there is a danger in being overly caviler because you don't feel any one particular threat is credible. The truth is that our power grid is vulnerable to any number of threats, both natural and man made. Large natural events like blizzards, hurricanes, earthquakes and even solar storms could obviously disrupt power over large areas. Smaller events like severe thunderstorms or ice events can do the same over limited areas. Terrorism, domestic or otherwise, is a threat in our modern day world. I don't know how big that threat really is, but it does exist. There are also just simple little random accidents (car hits a pole, squirrel grabs two wires at once) that cause a transformer to short out and cause a ripple effect.
The real point is we are extremely dependent on a system that is antiquated and subject to interruption from forces we do not control and often can not predict. I look at it much the same way as reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. You may believe they contribute to climate change. You may believe our dependence on the Middle East is a threat to national security. You may believe that the emissions are poisonous. You may believe that our economy will not be strong until we have a strong, domestic, renewable energy program. Any of those reasons, as diverse as they are, are perfectly valid reasons to be an advocate of change. They all end up pointing at essentially the same goal. Its the same with the grid.
I routinely lose electrical power where I live for several days at a time during the winter, sometimes for over a week, once for almost two weeks.
Life continued.
We had similar, if shorter, interruptions in the small mountain community where we lived for many years (typically only for a matter of hours or a day), but either example is significantly different than a failure of a large section of the grid. It's not the isolated island or mountain communities that offer the scary scenarios with a long term failure. Major cities where millions of people live do. Almost all of those people would be without a way to prepare most food, without sanitation, without heating or cooling and would have very limited options to escape. It would only be a few days before food and water supplies would start to run very short. I don't want to go all Kunstler here, but if something like that ever did happen those cities are not a place I would care to be.
ApatheticNoMore
2-27-12, 4:05pm
If this gets pushed under the agenda of fighting terrorism you are going to get very bad policies, as opposed to the entire goal being strictly limited to fixing problems with the grid. Fix problems with the grid would hopefully mostly amount to replacing old and failing or prone to fail parts. We once lived in a more sane society where stuff like that could be very straightforward, no war on terror needed. Upgrade infrastructure to keep infrastructure updated, because it's pragmatic and even economically beneficial. A society more at peace than at war.
At this point pushing almost anything under the "war on terror" and I run the other way because they only mean one thing by that term, more draconian police state insanity. I'd still be ok with being in a city in a power outage considering the fact I'm living in a earthquake state that has nuclear power plants (nuclear power without responsibility .... I don't know .... what could go wrong?).
If this gets pushed under the agenda of fighting terrorism you are going to get very bad policies...
The whole terrorism angle is just one part of the discussion we should be having, just like smog is only one reason to start moving away from fossil fuels. Besides, it is government entities that are ultimately responsible for fighting terrorism. The government does not own the grid. There are parts that are owned by municipal utilities in some areas, but far and wide it is privately owned. The large utility companies need to work with the government to devise a plan where the grid is less susceptible to attack, but it is a separate issue from something like the "war on terror".
...as opposed to the entire goal being strictly limited to fixing problems with the grid. Fix problems with the grid would hopefully mostly amount to replacing old and failing or prone to fail parts.
One big problem is that people believe a smart grid is just a matter of fixing and updating the old grid. It's not. Existing infrastructure will be a part of the new grid as much as possible, but its more complicated than that. Remember the old Texas Instrument calculators from the mid-1970's? It would be kind of like trying to update one of those to run Windows 8. In theory it might be possible, but in the real world you would be better off forgetting the duct tape & super glue and going with new technology.
I'd still be ok with being in a city in a power outage...
You might be, but if a major outage lasts more than a few days a couple hundred million of your closest friends would not. That is the problem.
Click HERE (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57390124/stuxnet-computer-worm-opens-new-era-of-warfare/?tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel) for the link to Sunday's 60 Minutes piece regarding Stuxnet, the potential unintended uses of it, a little about the threat it (or something like it) could pose to the grid, etc. Not terrifying or gloom and doom, but sobering.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.