Quantcast
Connect with us

A massive power outage like Argentina’s could happen in the US

Published

on

Argentina and Uruguay are recovering from nationwide power blackouts that cut electricity to tens of millions of people, including some in Paraguay, Chile and Brazil. The blackout’s cause is under investigation, but something similar could happen in the U.S. – and has.

On Aug. 14, 2003, a software bug contributed to a blackout that left 50 million people across nine U.S. northeastern states and a Canadian province without power. The outage lasted for as long as four days, with rolling blackouts in some areas for days after that.

ADVERTISEMENT

That event wasn’t caused by an attacker, but many of the recommendations of the final incident report focused on cybersecurity. More than 15 years later, the stakes of a long-term outage are even higher, as American business and society are even more dependent on electronic devices and international military forces are preparing for battles in cyberspace. Scholars around the country are studying the problem of protecting the grid from cyberattacks and software flaws. Several of them have written about their work for The Conversation:

1. Attacks could be hard to detect

Though the software error that amplified the 2003 U.S. blackout was not the result of a cyberattack, power grid scholar Michael McElfresh at Santa Clara University explains that a clever attacker could disguise the intrusion “as something as simple as a large number of apparent customers lowering their thermostat settings in a short period on a peak hot day.”

2. Grid targets are tempting

Iowa State University’s Manimaran Govindarasu and Washington State University’s Adam Hahn, both grid security scholars, noted that the grid is an attractive target for hackers, who could shut off power to large numbers of people: “It happened in Ukraine in 2015 and again in 2016, and it could happen here in the U.S., too.”

3. What to do now?

In another article, Govindarasu and Hahn went on to describe the level to which “Russians had penetrated the computers of multiple U.S. electric utilities and were able to gain … privileges that were sufficient to cause power outages.”

The response, they wrote, involves extending federal grid-security regulations to “all utility companies – even the smallest,” having “all companies that are part of the grid participate in coordinated grid exercises to improve cybersecurity preparedness and share best practices” and – crucially – insisting that power utilities “ensure the hardware and software they use are from trustworthy sources and have not been tampered with or modified to allow unauthorized users in.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Those steps won’t prevent software bugs, but they could reduce the likelihood of attackers exploiting computer systems’ vulnerabilities to shut off the lights.

4. Restructuring the grid itself

To protect against all types of threats to the grid – including natural and human-caused ones – engineering professor Joshua M. Pearce at Michigan Technological University suggests generating energy at many locations around the country, rather than in centralized power plants. He reports that his research has found that connecting those smaller power producers together with nearby electricity users would make supply more reliable, less vulnerable and cheaper. In fact, he found the U.S. military “could generate all of its electricity from distributed renewable sources by 2025 using … microgrids.”

At least that way a small problem with the grid would be less likely to spread and become a major problem for tens of millions of people, like the Northeast Blackout of 2003 – and like the Argentina-Uruguay blackout of 2019.

ADVERTISEMENT

Editor’s note: This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives. It is an updated version of an article originally published Aug. 14, 2018.

(You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors. You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter.)The Conversation

ADVERTISEMENT

Jeff Inglis, Science + Technology Editor, The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

CNN

Adam Schiff buries one of the GOP’s remaining anti-impeachment talking points

Published

on

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Wednesday took a hammer to one of the Republican Party's few remaining talking points aimed at undermining the House impeachment inquiry.

Throughout the testimony of European Union ambassador Gordon Sondland, Republicans kept saying that there couldn't be any kind of extortion scheme on President Donald Trump's part because Ukraine got its military aid without publicly announcing investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden.

Schiff, however, showed why this argument simply doesn't hold up.

"My colleagues seem to be under the impression that unless the president spoke the words, 'Ambassador Sondland, I am bribing the Ukrainian president,' that there's no evidence of bribery!" he said.

Continue Reading

Facebook

Chris Wallace fact-checks his own Fox News colleagues after their denials of Trump’s quid pro quo

Published

on

As US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland gave his testimony in the House impeachment hearings this Wednesday, Fox News contributor Ken Starr acknowledged that Sondland's testimony all but guarantees that articles of impeachment will be drawn up against President Trump. He also posited that Trump "gave himself enough cover" regarding Sondland's September 9 conversation with Trump where he said the President allegedly said, "I want nothing, I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo."

"Well, I think that Ken Starr and [Fox News contributor] Andy McCarthy are very good lawyers," Wallace said. "And like any good lawyers they can parse this, phrase this any way they want, but as a reporter it seems to me that we have to go to what the headline is today, and the headline is that Gordon Sondland, one of the three amigos, perhaps the one who had the most direct contact with Donald Trump, says in his opening statement, 'Was there a quid pro quo with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting? The answer is yes.'"

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Conservative attorney dismantles GOP arguments against impeachment: ‘Trump’s abuse threatens your freedom’

Published

on

A conservative attorney knocked down Republican arguments against impeachment one by one in a viral tweet, and urged others to support the removal President Donald Trump.

Bryan Gividen, an appellate attorney from Dallas, touted his conservative bona fides by describing himself as a "pro-religious liberty, pro-life, would snort Cocaine Mitch’s judicial confirmations" if he could -- but still said he supports Trump's impeachment.

"At this point, there is no question that President Trump directed U.S. officials to withhold security funding to the Ukraine so Ukraine would investigate the Bidens," Gividen began. "That is the kind of abuse of the President’s authority we should not tolerate."

Continue Reading
 
 

Happy Holidays!

As a special thank you to holiday season subscribers, we're offering Raw Story ad-free for 15% off - just $2 per week. Now until Dec. 31st.
Offer Expires In:
close-link