2月26日新加坡《聯(lián)合早報(bào)》報(bào)道，11名議員致信國土安全部部長科爾斯金·尼爾森(Kirstjen Nielsen)，呼吁她“考慮在美國禁止使用華為的逆變器”。
他們在信函中說：“無論是大型光伏系統(tǒng)，還是家庭、校區(qū)和企業(yè)使用的光伏系統(tǒng)，都很容易遭受網(wǎng)絡(luò)攻擊。我們的聯(lián)邦政府應(yīng)該考慮在美國禁止使用華為的逆變器。”但這11名議員并沒有提供有關(guān)威脅性質(zhì)的相關(guān)細(xì)節(jié)和證據(jù)。
據(jù)了解，華為進(jìn)入美國電力市場相對較晚，但已開發(fā)出新一代低成本太陽能逆變器，可以轉(zhuǎn)換、管理和監(jiān)控家用太陽能電池板產(chǎn)生的能源。
你能用逆變器侵入電網(wǎng)嗎？
可能吧。但用筆記本電腦上網(wǎng)更有可能侵入電網(wǎng)。而且，華為的逆變器并不能侵入電網(wǎng)。
正文
我們不知道該如何看待這項(xiàng)提議中的禁令。
此前，美國政府由于擔(dān)心華為的設(shè)備可用于間諜活動，阻止華為已被禁止進(jìn)入其電信市場，尤其是在幾個(gè)西方國家參與5G網(wǎng)絡(luò)，但逆變器的作用與電信產(chǎn)品不同。
此外，立法機(jī)構(gòu)的成員往往不善于跟上技術(shù)的發(fā)展，也不善于在這個(gè)領(lǐng)域做出良好的評估。
但這些參議員(其中多數(shù)來自共和黨)的擔(dān)憂是否可以歸結(jié)為一個(gè)問題:一家逆變器制造商能否利用其產(chǎn)品對電網(wǎng)發(fā)起網(wǎng)絡(luò)攻擊，引起大面積停電甚至全網(wǎng)崩潰?
SUN2000L-5KTL-CN(4G)
國外光伏專業(yè)媒體聯(lián)系了SunSpec聯(lián)盟的主席Tom Tansy，請他提供意見，以幫助確定這種擔(dān)憂是否有技術(shù)依據(jù)，還是偏執(zhí)的排外言論。
1、死亡逆變器
在使用逆變器侵入系統(tǒng)方面，最大的擔(dān)憂是所有這些設(shè)備都可能同時(shí)關(guān)閉，導(dǎo)致全網(wǎng)停電。這與德國在2012年開始的“50.2 Hz問題”以及隨后的大規(guī)模逆變器改造中所面臨的危險(xiǎn)類似，但主要集中在一家制造商潛在的惡性意圖上。
Tansy指出，“遠(yuǎn)程控制逆變器是可能的，包括節(jié)流它的功率，或限制和掌控實(shí)際功率。如果你能控制一個(gè)逆變器，你就能控制很多?！?
在2018年，太陽能只提供了美國2.4%的電力，而分布式太陽能(小于1兆瓦的電廠)只占不到三分之一，或者說占到所有電力的0.7%。盡管在如加利福尼亞的一些州中使用太陽能發(fā)電的比例會更高一些，在有些州我們正在部署將來使用更多的太陽能和風(fēng)能發(fā)電，但在任何時(shí)候,任何逆變器制造商在整個(gè)電網(wǎng)系統(tǒng)上只占有一小部分。
即因此，即便一家為外國政府工作的逆變器制造商關(guān)閉了所有的逆變器，也很難產(chǎn)生重大影響。特別是針對分布式屋頂光伏,再怎么弄也無法有嚴(yán)重影響。
Tansy表示，如果一個(gè)外國政府或恐怖組織真的想摧毀電網(wǎng)，那么針對大型、集中式電站（如燃煤或核電站）將更加有效,而不是分布式太陽能發(fā)電。
2、黑客電網(wǎng)
這就引出了我們的下一個(gè)問題:逆變器能否被用來破壞電網(wǎng)，摧毀一座大型發(fā)電廠?Tansy指出，世界電力系統(tǒng)都是網(wǎng)絡(luò)化的，并沒有排除這種威脅，但是環(huán)境是至關(guān)重要的。
Tansy告訴pv-magzine:“更有可能的情況是，與其用光伏電網(wǎng)作為載體，試圖連接到到達(dá)核電站等關(guān)鍵設(shè)施，不如使用手持iPhone或筆記本電腦，或者通過公共互聯(lián)網(wǎng)連接?！?
他還表示，與配電網(wǎng)上的任何東西相比，在一個(gè)公用事業(yè)規(guī)模的電廠配套的逆變器上做到這一點(diǎn)要容易得多。配電網(wǎng)離核心發(fā)電設(shè)備相當(dāng)遠(yuǎn)，而且是完全孤立的系統(tǒng)。
此外，理論上，黑客可以使一個(gè)大型發(fā)電廠離線，但這并不一定會導(dǎo)致停電。大型發(fā)電廠總是在沒有任何預(yù)警的情況下停運(yùn)，比如，在2018年1月的“炸彈旋風(fēng)”(bomb cyclone)期間，馬薩諸塞州清教徒核電站(Pilgrim nuclear power plant)被迫關(guān)閉。在這種情況下，就像在其他情況下一樣，其他形式的發(fā)電被填充。
3、網(wǎng)絡(luò)安全
如果說電網(wǎng)易受網(wǎng)絡(luò)攻擊的關(guān)鍵是它的網(wǎng)絡(luò)，那么這也是它的優(yōu)勢所在。
Tansy說，目前電網(wǎng)經(jīng)常受到網(wǎng)絡(luò)攻擊，但到目前為止還沒有造成大停電?！懊刻於加嗅槍﹃P(guān)鍵基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的攻擊，“就像對銀行系統(tǒng)的攻擊每天24小時(shí)都在發(fā)生一樣?！?
事實(shí)上，Tansy指出，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)是建立在美國軍方發(fā)明的一種安全模式上。他解釋說:“互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的想法是建立一個(gè)分散的系統(tǒng)，建立一種機(jī)制，當(dāng)你在網(wǎng)絡(luò)的一小部分發(fā)生不利情況時(shí)，你可以檢測到。”我認(rèn)為，分布式能源具有同樣的特點(diǎn)。如果發(fā)生了什么事，你可以把它隔離開來。
4、正在進(jìn)行的工作
這并不是說Tansy不關(guān)心網(wǎng)絡(luò)安全，SunSpec聯(lián)盟現(xiàn)在正持續(xù)關(guān)注華為這一事件，并與Sandia國家實(shí)驗(yàn)室、國家可再生能源實(shí)驗(yàn)室(NREL)還有其他國家實(shí)驗(yàn)室合作開展這一事件的相關(guān)工作。Tansy解釋說:“這個(gè)行業(yè)正竭盡全力維護(hù)秩序?！?
盡管他表明了對網(wǎng)絡(luò)安全和電網(wǎng)存在國家安全方面的擔(dān)憂，但他不贊成禁止特定公司作為解決方案的想法。“孤立一家公司的想法是愚蠢的，”Tansy說?！八麄冎皇瞧渲兄?。那種認(rèn)為我們可以孤立和包圍華為，從而解決我們的問題的想法是天真的。
他還表示，盡管參議院情報(bào)委員會(Senate Intelligence Committee)試圖禁止華為，但氣候變化對我們國家的安全構(gòu)成的威脅要大得多。許多參議員，尤其是共和黨參議員，一直在積極否認(rèn)這一威脅。
Tansy說:“讓我們處理當(dāng)下真正的緊急情況，不要混淆我們對政治和與中國貿(mào)易平衡的任何看法?！?
以下是英文原文（https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/03/01/can-you-hack-the-grid-using-an-inverter/?from=groupmessage）：
Can you hack the grid using an inverter?
Maybe. But you’d be better off using a laptop. And no, Huawei inverters aren’t going to cause a blackout.
MARCH 1, 2019 CHRISTIAN ROSELUND
On Monday, 11 U.S. senators sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, calling on her to “consider a ban on the use of Huawei inverters in the United States”. These senators expressed concern over both large-scale PV plants and distributed, rooftop systems, without giving exact details regarding the nature of the threat posed.
We weren’t sure what to make of this proposed ban. Huawei has been blocked from the telecom market and specifically from participating in the 5G network in several Western nations over concerns that its equipment could be used for espionage, but inverters play a different role than telecommunications products. Furthermore, members of the legislative body that takes its name from the Latin for “old men” are often not the best at keeping up to date with technology (“series of tubes”, anyone?), and making good assessments in this realm.
But whether or not these senators – most of whom hail from the Republican Party – have a valid concern comes down to this question: could an inverter maker use its products to launch cyberattacks on the grid, or cause blackouts?
We contacted Tom Tansy, the chair of the SunSpec Alliance, and asked his opinion to help determine whether there is a technical basis for this concern, or whether this is paranoia and xenophobia talking.
The “kill switch”
The biggest concern in terms of using inverters to hack into systems involves the danger that all of these devices could all be shut down at once, causing blackouts. This is similar to the danger that was posed to Germany under the “50.2 Hz problem” and subsequent mass inverter retrofit starting in 2012, but focused on the potential for malignant intent by one manufacturer.
Tansy notes that it is possible to remotely control an inverter, including throttling its power, or limiting and steering real power. And if you could control one inverter, you could control a number of them.
Here it is important to remember that in 2018, solar only provided 2.4% of the electricity in the United States, with distributed solar (plants smaller than 1 MW), representing less than 1/3 of that, or 0.7% of all power. And although it is true that some states like California get a much higher share of their power from solar, and that we are planning for a future with a higher portion of solar and wind on the grid, any inverter maker has only a small part of the total systems online at any one time.
So even if one inverter maker, working on behalf of a foreign government, did shut off all of their inverters, it would be hard to have a big effect. This is particularly true if they were most active in rooftop solar markets.
Tansy says that if a foreign government or terrorist group did want to take down the grid, it would be much more effective to target large, centralized generators like coal or nuclear power plants, and not distributed solar.
Hacking the grid?
Which brings us to our next question: could inverters be used to hack the electric grid, and take down a big power plant? Tansy notes that the world’s power systems are all networked and didn’t rule out this threat, but again context is critical.
“The far more likely scenario, rather than using a solar system as your vector to try to get to a critical facility, like a nuclear power plant, would be to use your handheld iPhone or laptop or come over a common internet connection,” Tansy told pv magazine.
He also says that this would be much easier to do from an inverter accompanying a utility-scale plant than anything on the distribution grid, which is “pretty far away from the central generators, and physically isolated”.
Furthermore, if in a theoretical scenario a hacker could take a large power plant offline, this wouldn’t necessarily cause a blackout. Large power plants go offline without warning all the time, such as when the Pilgrim nuclear power plant in Massachusetts had to be take off during the January 2018 “bomb cyclone” storm. In this case as in others, other forms of generation filled in.
Networked security
If the key to the vulnerability of the grid to cyberattacks is its network, that is also its strength.
Tansy says that there are frequent cyberattacks on the grid now, and so far they haven’t caused any major blackouts. “Attacks are made against critical infrastructure every single day,” states Tansy. “Just like attacks on the banking system happen 24/7.”
In fact, Tansy points out that the internet was basically invented by the U.S. military as a security mechanism. “The idea of the internet was to make a decentralized system, and build in mechanisms such that you can detect when you have adverse conditions happening on one small part of the network,” he explains. “Distributed energy resources, I would argue, shares that same characteristic. If something happens, you can isolate it.”
Ongoing work
This is not to say that Tansy isn’t concerned about cybersecurity, and notes that the SunSpec Alliance is engaged in ongoing work on this topic, including in collaboration with Sandia National Laboratory, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and other national labs. “The industry is taking great pains to get its house in order,” explains Tansy.
And while he confirms that there are national security concerns around cybersecurity and the grid, he does not endorse the concept of banning specific companies as a solution. “The idea of isolating a single company is folly,” states Tansy. “They are just one of many. This idea that we can isolate and surround Huawei, and that will solve our problems – it is naive.”
He also states that while the Senate Intelligence Committee tries for a ban on Huawei, that there is a much larger threat to our nation’s security in the form of climate change. This is a threat which many senators, particularly in the Republican Party, have been actively denying.
“Let’s deal with the true emergencies of the day, and not conflate whatever notion we have about politics and balance of trade with China,” states Tansy.
來源：PV-magzine
