7 ms·

Blackouts cause people a lot of trouble. But building physical protection against attacks like the Metcalf transformer shooting would be expensive, and people

by jzwinck 13y ago

Blackouts cause people a lot of trouble. But building physical protection against attacks like the Metcalf transformer shooting would be expensive, and people already complain their electricity bills are too high. Given the choice between a 10% higher bill and a 1% greater annual chance of a blackout, which would most people choose? The article focuses on solutions involving physical security. Perhaps it would be more cost-effective to bolster deterrents? For example, life in prison for anyone convicted of sabotaging a major facility of any kind (in the Metcalf case, this could include both the shooting and the cutting of telecom fiber beforehand). There also seems to be less focus on improving the resilience of the system as a whole--given that the threats are being modeled to determine minimum amounts of sabotage required, why not emphasize increasing that minimum, rather than reinforcing the few critical points of failure? Computing has moved in the direction of resilient systems made of less reliable components, and so could the grid. As an aside, a blackout in summertime can be pretty interesting. The one in 2003 brought people together in new ways--I experienced a sense of community which was quite unusual, "old fashioned" you might say.

trobertson 13y ago
With regards to your first paragraph, we have plenty of money to spend on defense. The USA is expected to spend around 1.2 trillion dollars on defense in 2014 [0]. The problem, is that most of that spending is overseas "defense", and very little of it is used to secure critical domestic infrastructure. Like our energy grids, our roads and highways, etc. --- [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Audit_of_implementation_of_budget_for_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_...
- jzwinck 13y ago
  In the US, isn't electricity supplied and managed by corporations rather than the government? This complicates things somewhat, as it exposes the system to market forces ("I want a choice of providers and I will choose the cheapest") and may reduce the government's ability to "intrude" by adding safety measures. Perhaps more critically, since the US grid seems to be operated by a number of competing companies, it may be less likely that the system itself will be made resilient, because there is limited cooperation. If the people of the US decided to spend money on hardening power delivery, would the money come from tax dollars, or electricity bills?
  - clarky07 13y ago
    It is supplied by corporations, but it is a HIGHLY regulated industry, and almost all corporations have a government granted local monopoly. Very little choice in where you get your electricity from.
    - mw2002 13y ago
      she just said in ther the board is the wrong color. ive got a black pen itz in my hand so that's y the board is white now ive forgotten wat I was gonna write onit . I can't imagine bein da boss of all ya I wouldn't trust my friend whos not angry to know how to pick up the right people watsit employ, rite ur hired go home get dressed den go in there were its says room and start doing somfin, dats wat shes like
clarky07 13y ago
This is a really great point. While I don't mind increasing security at the major failure points in the short term, it makes a lot more sense to make the system as a whole more resilient and get rid of the small failure points.
anigbrowl 13y ago
But building physical protection against attacks like the Metcalf transformer shooting would be expensive Walls are not expensive. I don't think that anyone engaged in a systematic attack on the distribution network is going to be particularly deterred by the threat of prison, given the potential strategic payoff. A large-scale blackout plus an attack on the only factory that makes those large transformers has the potential to cripple Us industrial capacity for weeks, if not months.
- hga 13y ago
  Your analysis is overly scenario dependent. If someone is determined to take out a transformer they'd breach the wall or go over it. Or perhaps, staying outside the wall, cover it in a cloud of carbon fibers, we have warheads that release those instead of using a pure explosive charge to take out electrical installations like these.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Certainly, but the object is not to make them absolutely attack proof but to make attacks more difficult and expensive, and thus easier to deter, detect and interrupt.

by jzwinck 13y ago

trobertson 13y ago

With regards to your first paragraph, we have plenty of money to spend on defense. The USA is expected to spend around 1.2 trillion dollars on defense in 2014 [0]. The problem, is that most of that spending is overseas "defense", and very little of it is used to secure critical domestic infrastructure. Like our energy grids, our roads and highways, etc. --- [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Audit_of_implementation_of_budget_for_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_...

jzwinck 13y ago
In the US, isn't electricity supplied and managed by corporations rather than the government? This complicates things somewhat, as it exposes the system to market forces ("I want a choice of providers and I will choose the cheapest") and may reduce the government's ability to "intrude" by adding safety measures. Perhaps more critically, since the US grid seems to be operated by a number of competing companies, it may be less likely that the system itself will be made resilient, because there is limited cooperation. If the people of the US decided to spend money on hardening power delivery, would the money come from tax dollars, or electricity bills?
- clarky07 13y ago
  It is supplied by corporations, but it is a HIGHLY regulated industry, and almost all corporations have a government granted local monopoly. Very little choice in where you get your electricity from.
  - mw2002 13y ago
    she just said in ther the board is the wrong color. ive got a black pen itz in my hand so that's y the board is white now ive forgotten wat I was gonna write onit . I can't imagine bein da boss of all ya I wouldn't trust my friend whos not angry to know how to pick up the right people watsit employ, rite ur hired go home get dressed den go in there were its says room and start doing somfin, dats wat shes like

clarky07 13y ago

This is a really great point. While I don't mind increasing security at the major failure points in the short term, it makes a lot more sense to make the system as a whole more resilient and get rid of the small failure points.

anigbrowl 13y ago

But building physical protection against attacks like the Metcalf transformer shooting would be expensive Walls are not expensive. I don't think that anyone engaged in a systematic attack on the distribution network is going to be particularly deterred by the threat of prison, given the potential strategic payoff. A large-scale blackout plus an attack on the only factory that makes those large transformers has the potential to cripple Us industrial capacity for weeks, if not months.

hga 13y ago
Your analysis is overly scenario dependent. If someone is determined to take out a transformer they'd breach the wall or go over it. Or perhaps, staying outside the wall, cover it in a cloud of carbon fibers, we have warheads that release those instead of using a pure explosive charge to take out electrical installations like these.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Certainly, but the object is not to make them absolutely attack proof but to make attacks more difficult and expensive, and thus easier to deter, detect and interrupt.