Are Physical Barriers Better than Technology for Power Plant Security?
According to a recent simulation-based analysis, good old fashioned physical barriers like fences, concrete walls and armored shielding are better than high-tech solutions when it comes to power plant and substation security.
Simulating the Performance of Physical Barriers vs. Technology
The research involved measuring the impact of hundreds of simulated attacks on a substation, using an advanced software platform called Joint Conflict and Tactical Simulation, which was originally developed to assist military personnel with war planning. The 2013 California-based Metcalf Power Station attack served as the basis for the simulation, and the specific attacks were modeled from the most comprehensive database of US grid attacks currently available.
The results indicate that armored shielding around transformers is by far the most effective tactic, followed by other forms of physical barriers like concrete walls and chain link fences. Higher-tech options like cameras, advanced lighting, and motion sensors were not as effective. Even vegetation pruning, gunshot sensors and security guards were not as effective as good old physical barriers.
I find these results surprising. I would have thought that cameras and security guards in particular would have provided a stronger deterrent against physical attacks, but apparently that’s not the case. Funny, we’re programmed as a society to be biased toward technology, but sometimes low-tech approaches are the way to go.
The good news is that physical barriers are, in many cases, cheaper and easier to deploy than high-tech solutions. In reality, any method to boost the physical security of unmanned power plants, substations and transformers is useful, but its good to know what options provide the biggest bang for the proverbial buck.
Most likely, a mix of high and low-tech solutions is optimal, but if forced to choose, physical barriers should take precedence.
