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
