Electronic Armageddon, and No Electricity Either 158
Smart grid technology is a hot issue on Capitol Hill, but some are raising questions about the idea. In recent days we've discussed the smart grid's potential exposure to worm attacks, consumers' unreadiness for the idea, and whether the whole concept may need a rethink. A Congressional hearing on Thursday surfaced another reason for caution: the smart grid's vulnerability to EMP. "Electromagnetic Pulse" refers to the damage caused in electrical circuits and systems when a nuclear explosive goes off nearby. The electric grid as it's currently constituted is vulnerable to EMP; the further down the road we go towards a smart grid, the more vulnerable it will become. "It makes a great equalizer for small nations looking to stand up to military Goliaths, argues Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (Rep.-Md.), a former research scientist and engineer who has worked in the past on projects for NASA and the military. All one needs to wreak some serious EMP damage, he charges, is a sea-worthy steamer, $100,000 to buy a scud-missile launcher, and a crude nuclear weapon. Then fling the device high into the air and detonate its warhead. Such a system might not paralyze the entire United States, he concedes. 'But you could shut down all of New England. And if you missed by 100 miles, it's as good as a bulls eye.'"
An even easier hack (Score:3, Interesting)
Carbon dust, preferably something that drifts easily, probably something on a nanoscale like carbon nanotubes. That will damage all kinds of electronics. Many Air Force military communications and computer facilities near flight lines have vents to cut off outside air. They're used mostly for when a plane crashes and burns though it can afford minimal protection against NBC's.
BLU-114/B "Soft-Bomb" (Score:1, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-114/B_%22Soft-Bomb%22 [wikipedia.org]
Re:Smart Grid is a scam (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:All one needs... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah because a sea worthy steamer, scud missile launcher and crude nuclear weapon are so easy to come by. Not saying the smart grid doesn't have other problems but it is far from easy to do serious EMP damage.
Well at least on purpose, all you really need is one good sized CME, Coronal mass ejection, [wikipedia.org] which happen about every 50 years so we're due for one. Of course about every 500 years we get a big one, one that will make the Amish look high-tech afterwards, the last one was in1859;
Re:Smart Grid is a scam (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>The Big Lie is that this modernization supposedly needs to be done in order for green energy technologies (eg grid interactive solar) to work, when in fact, nothing could be further than the truth.
>>>
Well that's the first I ever heard of that. I was under the impression the purpose of a SmartGrid was to turn my home's heater on-and-off remotely. i.e. Centralized control of power demand.
It seems to me the best investment would be a solution that requires NO heating. Like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passivhaus [wikipedia.org] - The government could have a program similar to what they are doing with old pollute-mobiles: Offer tax credits to "trade-in" your old inefficient house for a new passivhaus. If everyone converted, then residental power usage would drop somewhere around 75%. This image in particular shows how "leaky" an old home is compared to one of these newer homes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Passivhaus_thermogram_gedaemmt_ungedaemmt.png [wikipedia.org]
My own approach to energy savings, rather than use "smart" appliances, is simply to use the brain in my head. I turn-off the heat (or A/C) when I go to bed, heat my bathroom for my morning shower with a small portable, go off to work, and then turn the heat back-on when I get home. So instead of 24 hour heating (or cooling), I'm averaging just 5 hours a day.
Aside-
A lot of people embrace Compact Flourescent Lights as if they are some magic cure to solve our future energy drought. But I have to disagree. I've been using CFL's for almost twenty years, and I've come to the conclusion that they are a worse idea that using Edison's incandescent lighting. Here's why:
- CFLs have a power factor of around 0.5, which means they use twice as much power as rated. For example a 15 watt CFL uses 15 watts in your home, but then it uses another 15 watts at the central power plant due to the need to "rebalance" the power and restore the PF to 1.0. TOTAL == 30 watts burned
- New technologies have allowed folks like GE to build 60 watt incandescants that only use 30 watts while still providing the same brightness. So the net usage is the same as the CFL described above. No need to abandon the old bulbs.
- CFLs *hate* heat. CFLs *hate* cold. CFLs *hate* humidity. CFLs *hate* dimmers. In practical terms this means CFLs can not be used in 80-90% of present fixtures. I used them in my upside-down kitchen lights - they died 2 months later. I used a CFL outside in my porch light - it worked fine until the temperature dropped below zero, and then refused to light. I used them in my bathroom, and after a couple showers the humidity killed half of them (the heat may also have been a factor). I bought a so-called "dimmable CFL" which died 5 minutes after I installed it in my living room dimmer switch. Instead of saving money, I'm wasting it on tons of dead CFLs.
- CFLs hate being turned on and off. Rapid cycling makes them die as quick as an incandescent bulb. So you've spent 5 times as much for a bulb than doesn't last any longer.
- CFLs have a warm-up time. Turn it on to read your paper, and you have to wait 3 minutes before you can see the writing. Turn it on to go down the basement stairs - and you can't see the steps because the bulb is still warming up (i.e too dim - a safety hazard).
I have about 20 CFLs in my home.
But I'm gradually phasing them out and
replacing them with 25 or 40 watt incandescents.
I tried to do my part to be green over the last two decades, but it's just not working. The CFLs are not the solution to reduced lighting expenses. Perhaps these new half-power incandescents from GE will provide an answer, or the new LED lights, but CFLs are not it.
Re:Smart Grid is a scam (Score:3, Interesting)
There is confusion (caused on purpose by the pro-oil community) about what we mean by "smart grid". We need a high voltage DC grid to transmit wind energy from the Rockies to New York. This isn't "smart", in fact, it's old dumb technology from the 70's that we've improved marginally. We need this grid so that we can plug any kind of energy generation into it from anywhere, without concern for where it's used. Discussions of a "smart" grid are about a whole other problem - that our current grid is way out of date and needs a face-lift. So long as we get the HVDC grid, I'm happy.
The big-oil/RNC/neocons are using their time-proven strategy of re-labeling. By defining "smart grid" as something utilities and big-oil want, they can take over the push for the HVDC grid and instead create yet another huge give-away for huge corporations. It's just like when they redefined "network neutrality" as an evil plot [youtube.com] by Silicon Valley to take your money.
Re:Smart Grid is a scam (Score:3, Interesting)
Well I guess you've been lucky then. First I tried Lights of America bulbs, all of which died in my upside-down kitchen lights due to heat. Then I went back to incandescents. Then I found Philips bulbs in Walmart that I decided to try because they are a known-good brand. Well they did last longer, but it didn't take long for them to start flickering when lit and then die completely. I opened them up, and all the caps were leaking fluid - a sure sign of overheating from being placed upside-down. So I'm back to the incandescents.
It seems the ONLY fixture where CFLs will work for me is a well-ventilated lampshade-type lamp. They won't work in upside-down fixtures, high-humidity areas like my bathroom, or outside in the cold porch light (they don't die; they just refuse to ignite).
If you think I'm lying (or that my problems are unique), then take a look at google: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=problems+with+CFLs [lmgtfy.com] ----- As for the "mythical half-power incandescents" you could have looked that up on wikipedia instead of calling bullshit. Or you could google it. Or you could read this article: http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/ge/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070223005120 [businesswire.com]
Here's another technique that reduces incandescent power to 70% (i.e. a 42 watt Edison bulb can produce the same light as a 60) - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all [nytimes.com]
Re:A crude nuclear system? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A crude nuclear system? (Score:2, Interesting)
Try some mylar balloons [buffalonews.com].
hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll ignore the smarmy insult...
Which part don't you understand? I'll clarify again.
He has water that is needed or will be needed, plus he invested in a large wind project for electricity, which is or will be needed as well. He doesn't own all the pieces for this project, but enough for a good start, and the plan itself makes several logical points. Right of ways are necessary to move these utility products, so of course the government would need to establish these routes, it's the basic way they are done in this nation with centralized delivery systems, which I termed the precedent. I then mentioned, just as a "for instance", that huge sums of money are being used to bailout some dubiously named banks, which I (and many other people) contend are more huge gambling casinos than anything else, and I said if these huge emergency sums were going to be spent anyway, I would much rather see these huge sums spent for national energy and water infrastructure projects, one example being the topic, the "Pickens' Plan", and also more scientific research and development, etc. What isn't clear?