In reference to this.
At one time the power grid earned the name because it was a real grid. Taking out an intersection would have no immediate effect because the power automatically would travel through a different route to the end of the lines.
If you put a region on a single transmission line with a single transformer station, a single attack shuts that region down.
Same with pipelines, rails or roads, by the way.
The "solution" isn't more security, it's more redundancy.
The "problem" with redundancy is that it costs more and you don't ever use it until you NEED it. It's literally useless until it's needed.
Yet... everyday; most of the people reading this strap on or pocket a pistol they will not use today. A useless bother until you NEED it.
On many fronts in the nation I wonder if we should evoke the "national defense" loophole...
There's carve-outs in lots of laws for a pressing need to national defense, in the EPA in particular.
Want zero-carbon emission power generation? NUKE! Can't get your nuke plant built, certified and in operation because of the labyrinthian set of laws, rules and regulations? Pressing National Defense Needs and voila! Captain Somedude (USNR) is the commander of the plant and it says "Department of the Navy" on the gate instead of "Department of Energy"...
Redundant power routing and transformers are expensive? Tax break for national defense readiness participation.
I'd also move a deliberate attack on the power grid up to Danny Deever treason status.
No comments:
Post a Comment
You are a guest here when you comment. This is my soapbox, not yours. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.
Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post. If I can't tell what your point is in the first couple of sentences I'm flushing it.
If you're trying to comment anonymously: You can't. Log into your Google account.
If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.