Chris, great dialogue to wake up to. My first cuppa tea responses in “dark
red” below.
Karen Watters Cole
wrote:
> Does anyone want to comment on the theory, suggested by Arthur’s
colleague, that the blackout originating in Ohio was caused by a disabled
computer,
> infected by a virus or worm, thus unable to respond in an emergency
situation;
The renowned German computer magazine c't suggested that the power outage in
N.America was caused by the W32.Blaster worm that still rages thru
unpatched Windoze systems:
The Niagara powerplant (where the outage started) belongs to the National Grid
USA (http://www.nationalgridus.com), a customer of
Northern Dynamics (http://www.opcexperts.com).
The powerplant's control system uses OPC
("OLE for Process Control") based on
Micro$oft's COM/DCOM model. This includes exactly the security loophole that
the W32.Blaster worm exploits. The frequent reboots caused
by the worm are blocking the DCOM communication and thus OPC onunpatched
systems, as in the powerplants' SCADA systems (Supervisory
Control and Data Acquisition).
(article in German: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/ju-15.08.03-001/
)
> or do we just want to speculate that this
power crisis was deliberately triggered to make political points specifically
to the advantage of the
> electricity industry and its political friends crafting Energy policy;
Why should it be to their advantage? It has put them in the defensive (see
subject line of this thread). It rather seems that IF it was
deliberately triggered, then by the Democrats, in preparation of the presidential
election campaign 2004 (along the lines of
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=434764
).
> or that the Bush2 administration needed something to divert world
attention from the California recall, the poor economy and globocop occupation
news
> arriving daily from Iraq?
Then why didn't Dubya blame it on terrorists? [KWC] Because he has had to retract too many
other public statements lately.
> On a more serious note, hopefully, we
should see more interest in new materials and innovations to improve both
capacity and reliability of
> existing lines that won’t require as much new construction, grossly enrich
the electricity lobby and/or activate NIMBY.
Absolutely. I liked Rifkin's proposal at http://www.guardian.co.uk/renewable/Story/0,2763,1021569,00.html
> Efforts to push through a jumbo
energy package on the heels of a utility crisis will resemble the forced
passage of the USA Patriot Act after 9/11. - KWC
The big difference is that the measures of the Patridiot Act are in the vested
interest of Dubya's corporate backers and friends (à la Carlyle)
whereas the opposite applies to a good solution of the utility crisis. [KWC] Actually, Sen.
Pete Domenici, R-New Mexico, is the chief sponsor of the Senate version the yet
unpassed Energy 2003 plan. The
House and Senate versions will go to closed-door conference hearings after
Labor Day, with a much different public awareness than before the August
recess. The original Energy 2003
plan had 140 amendments on it, including the overhaul of the electrical grid
system but by necessity means permitting the federal government to purchase
vast amounts of new land for new acquisition. Recent technology and new materials may provide the answer
to our capacity and reliability needs, given that the administration is not
interested in conservation. It’s true;
there were plenty of big name Democrats on the co-sponsors list of the Senate’s
legislation, which I suspect was intended to put them at the table in the
conference committee, where the real deal will be made. I prefer open government, myself, where
I can access public documents and see who said what and voted how. This is increasingly difficult with
this White House and this Republican-controlled Congress.
It’s important to keep
in perspective that the Bush2 administration has a credibility problem especially
when it addresses energy and environmental issues. They deserve it. This seems unfair to
some, but since it is loaded with industry people and it has removed so many
scientists from review committees, Bush2 can only blame itself for having these
public relations problems. Today,
the president is visiting Oregon, where I live. The local editorial remarks that there is no better place to
judge Bush2 on the environment and energy policy, saying that Bush is a “lost
cause” on major environmental issues like energy policy but there is hope on
regional issues for compromise and good solutions. We need good science and planning, not political payback and
vote-getting while invoking the fear of more forest fires.
Because of the blackout, many
like myself fear that this very important legislation with many unknown
benefactors will be rushed through, rather than debated carefully and weighed
for the long term consequences. We
need comprehensive energy policy for a sustainable future, but after Enron and
the faux California energy crises, we should be skeptical of any policy that is
bundled together and forced through in haste. I am hoping for moderation and wise heads to prevail. KWC
Chris
