1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

More nickle and diming

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Misu, Jan 4, 2003.

  1. Misu

    Misu Hey, I saw that.

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/03/utilities.terrorism.ap/index.html

    <i>A growing number of utility companies are asking states for permission to add security fees to customers' bills to recover the cost of protecting themselves against possible terrorist attack. </i>

    Now how do they figure that customers should be charged additional fees and surcharges for putting in security that should already been there in the first place?!?!?!?!??!
     
  2. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Misu, what should or should not have been there pre 9/11 is debatable. All power plants of any appreciable size require onsite operators. In the past, sabotage wasn't a likely scenario. The usual practice was double fencing and double locks, with the operators inside. Very large plants frequently would have a Dunkin' Donut variety 'security' guard. That was very much sufficient, given the times and the perceived threat. The main concern then was somebody breaching the perimeter and frying themself.

    These days, you will find that a power plant in the range of 250 megawatts will have armed security patrols maintaining their perimeter. That's a reasonable cost to pass on to consumers, as the previous security solution was already showing up in your bill.

    Here in California, the San Onofre Nuclear plant had its existing security strenuously tested right after 9/11 and that security was found to be largely adequate to the task, with the only recommendation that they provide intrusion detection near the cooling outlets that would detect intrusions into the swim zone of the outlets.
     
  3. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Just a word of advice Coot, never discuss actual security details in an open forum. If they were not checking for those details they would now, and if they have not been purchased yet you may of compromised your fellow workers. I don't expect you to respond to this, I would of normally said this in an IM to you, but I wanted others to be alert to this kind of thing too. Even if it is only a one in a million chance they found this, how would you feel if you won the lotto on this one. I know you are a good man and I don't question your judgement, you will do what you feel is right whatever that is. Sometimes seeing others learn from a situation is better for everyone involved and I know you are man enough to endure it.
    :thumbsup:
     
  4. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    I know what you're saying Jim, but this was all published in various newspapers and in a couple of TV pieces.
     
  5. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Misu, I'm currently working for a security company and am detailed to one of the local Hydro companies as part of their anti-terrorism program. It isn't just the power plants that need protection. Much of your hydro is computer controlled at this point. From one or two places, the power grid for an entire state can be controlled.

    Knocking out a power station would cause some serious disruption for a short time, until power was rerouted via these control centers. However, if the control center itself were to be compromised..... Now you're looking at weeks before power could be restored. The security is necessary.
     
  6. Jedi Writer

    Jedi Writer Guest

    Speaking of the topic in general your post reminds me of news segment I saw about six to eight weeks ago. The TV "reporter" was in a small single engine plane flying over a nuclear power plant--it may even have been San Onofre.

    As the camera panned the dome and the plane circled the "reporter" talked about how they were free to fly overhead and circle with immunity and if they chose to crash the plane into the dome there was nothing to stop them. I guess he wants Patriot batteries at every sight?

    Of course what he failed to mention was if he chose to crash the crate he was flying into the dome it would just leave a big greasy spot on the dome and that is all. The cost to the plant would be at worse a new paint job on the dome.
     
  7. Misu

    Misu Hey, I saw that.

    I'm not saying the security isn't necessary - I'm saying the security should have always BEEN there. Why it wasn't doesn't matter - terrorism has always existed. The fact no one thought that terrorists would actually attack us on our own soil or attempt to attack us with things already existing in our country, like our own airplanes, was entirely due to lack of forethought and, what I truly believe, an extremely arrogant attitude that we as Americans hold of ourselves. The "No one would dare fuck with us because we're badd-ass" attitude.

    So now these companies want to charge us for providing security to their plants, something that should have always been there. I don't think that's right nor fair.
     
  8. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Misu, if 10 years ago, companies started to charge for "security" I would dare say the cry of "foul" would be much stronger than it is today. You have to balance the cost with the threat. What was a cost effective deterent 10 years ago, is no longer the case today.
     
  9. Jedi Writer

    Jedi Writer Guest

    Agreed. Ten years ago they needed a walkie talkie. Now they need a walkie talkie and a Glock. That's life and it costs money.

    Things that worked at places like the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant are now obsolete.
     

Share This Page