Risky Business

“Every [power] substation is controlled by the master, which is controlled by the operator,” says researcher Chris Sistrunk who, along with Adam Crain, found vulnerabilities in the products of more than 20 vendors. “If you have control of the master, you have control of the whole system, and you can turn on and off power at will.”

…“If someone tries to breach the control center through the internet, they have to bypass layers of firewalls,” Crain said. “But someone could go out to a remote substation that has very little physical security and get on the network and take out hundreds of substations potentially. And they don’t necessarily have to get into the substation either.” _ArsTechnica

Sistrunk and Crain are talking about conventional network controlled grid systems. “Smart grids” are even more vulnerable since they are so much more integrated into the network:

The maker of an industrial control system designed to be used with so-called smart grid networks disclosed to customers last week that hackers had breached its network and accessed project files related to a control system used in portions of the electrical grid. _Wired

It is bad enough that grid systems are being made vulnerable to blackouts and cascading failures by the creeping integration of unreliable intermittent energy sources such as big wind and big solar. When large grids become more infested with “smart grid” technology, the level of risk will rise to very uncomfortable levels.

We know that if the electrical power grid goes down for a long period of time, a lot of people will suffer and die for a variety of reasons. Widespread panic, violence, and looting are likely — and that is just in the first few days. If power cannot be restored within a week, the ugliness of New Orleans during the Katrina fiasco will seem like a picnic in the park.

All of this risk for what? To save the world from global warming? Ask yourself how carbon mania grew to such panic proportions so as to cause national leaders to devise such risky policies.

The recent 17 year plateau of global temperatures suggest that most of the intermittent climate warming that took place in the 20th century was most likely due to natural causes. Of the portion of warming that may have been due to human actions, almost all was due to changes in land use and to black soot production from coal use.

Very little of the warming was likely to be due to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. And most of the effect of that CO2 warming was good — very good.

Why Climate Change is Good for the World _Matt Ridley

The Social Benefit of More Carbon: $3.5 trillion in added agricultural productivity –Dr. Roy Spencer

As seductive as a belief in doom may be, it is more productive to look on the bright side _ Bjorn Lomborg

Climate Hysteria is killing environmental journalism

Though you won’t read about it in the popular press, discussions about the vast uncertainty in climate studies are becoming animated. More on the underlying theory of uncertainty here.

Trillions of dollars are being taxed, invested, diverted, and redistributed on the basis of unproven supercomputer based hypotheses. Continental power grids are being placed at risk, power grids which underlie the well-being of almost 1 billion people in the advanced world.

Unsightly unreliable exorbitantly expensive and monstrous wind turbines — killers of birds, purveyors of multiple human maladies, and destabilizers of power grids — the best remedy is simply to pull them down. They are rusting in wind machine graveyards across Hawaii and California. Texas will soon fill up with wind turbine graveyards, paid for by US worker tax dollars — and fiat phantom Obama dollars, of course. Even Google is up-to-its-eyballs in green government graft.

High flying grifters in government, academia, and the media love a crisis — it gives them carte blanche with the public to do pretty much whatever they want.

Try not to be a schmuck. Be smart. Be skeptical. Be prepared.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Climate, Energy and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Risky Business

  1. bob sykes says:

    Several years ago, a horse farmer here in central Ohio put up a small wind turbine, about 70 kW. He got all sorts of favorable press from the local newspaper. About four to five years into the project, one of the turbine blades broke off, and for the last two years or so the generator has been off line. No local comments.

    The subsidies allow these things to be built, but there is no subsidy for repair, and the country is littered with broken turbines. I read some place than maybe 20% of the installed units aren’t working. These things are being amortized over 20 years (the UK is proposing 40 years), but the reality is that they have a useful life of about 5 years, certainly less than 10.

  2. alfin2101 says:

    Good point, Bob. But who is going to “look behind the curtain” to the rusting and broken turbines, when the media is out in front proclaiming the glorious future of green energy?

    The masses are led by a rotten and corrupt collusion of government, activism, media, academia, and the wealth (including Google’s) that helps prop up the delusional clusterfoque.

  3. Sam says:

    Wind turbines and solar are great for remote areas. Pumping water and small electrical loads. I’m all for it if even just to acquire more independence but it would be difficult to run a steel mill off of them. We need more energy not less. Wasting energy or more correctly having it to waste creates prosperity. I believe that large amounts of the carbon hysteria is all about financial manipulation of basic energy supplies for profit. Of course some people just hate humans and modernization.

  4. Stephen says:

    I hope you do some of your peak oil skeptic stuff Al in the future, just like in the good old days at Al Fin Energy.

Comments are closed.