2月26日新加坡《聯合早報》報道，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)，都很容易遭受網絡攻擊。我們的聯邦政府應該考慮在美國禁止使用華為的逆變器?！钡@11名議員并沒有提供有關威脅性質的相關細節(jié)和證據。
據了解，華為進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，可以轉換、管理和監(jiān)控家用太陽能電池板產生的能源。
你能用逆變器侵入電網嗎？
可能吧。但用筆記本電腦上網更有可能侵入電網。而且，華為的逆變器并不能侵入電網。
正文
我們不知道該如何看待這項提議中的禁令。
此前，美國政府由于擔心華為的設備可用于間諜活動，阻止華為已被禁止進入其電信市場，尤其是在幾個西方國家參與5G網絡，但逆變器的作用與電信產品不同。
此外，立法機構的成員往往不善于跟上技術的發(fā)展，也不善于在這個領域做出良好的評估。
但這些參議員(其中多數來自共和黨)的擔憂是否可以歸結為一個問題:一家逆變器制造商能否利用其產品對電網發(fā)起網絡攻擊，引起大面積停電甚至全網崩潰?
SUN2000L-5KTL-CN(4G)
國外光伏專業(yè)媒體聯系了SunSpec聯盟的主席Tom Tansy，請他提供意見，以幫助確定這種擔憂是否有技術依據，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，最大的擔憂是所有這些設備都可能同時關閉，導致全網停電。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，或限制和掌控實際功率。如果你能控制一個逆變器，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能發(fā)電，但在任何時候,任何逆變器制造商在整個電網系統(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閉了所有的逆變器，也很難產生重大影響。特別是針對分布式屋頂光伏,再怎么弄也無法有嚴重影響。
Tansy表示，如果一個外國政府或恐怖組織真的想摧毀電網，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
這就引出了我們的下一個問題:逆變器能否被用來破壞電網，摧毀一座大型發(fā)電廠?Tansy指出，世界電力系統(tǒng)都是網絡化的，并沒有排除這種威脅，但是環(huán)境是至關重要的。
Tansy告訴pv-magzine:“更有可能的情況是，與其用光伏電網作為載體，試圖連接到到達核電站等關鍵設施，不如使用手持iPhone或筆記本電腦，或者通過公共互聯網連接?！?
他還表示，與配電網上的任何東西相比，在一個公用事業(yè)規(guī)模的電廠配套的逆變器上做到這一點要容易得多。配電網離核心發(fā)電設備相當遠，而且是完全孤立的系統(tǒng)。
此外，理論上，黑客可以使一個大型發(fā)電廠離線，但這并不一定會導致停電。大型發(fā)電廠總是在沒有任何預警的情況下停運，比如，在2018年1月的“炸彈旋風”(bomb cyclone)期間，馬薩諸塞州清教徒核電站(Pilgrim nuclear power plant)被迫關閉。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、網絡安全
如果說電網易受網絡攻擊的關鍵是它的網絡，那么這也是它的優(yōu)勢所在。
Tansy說，目前電網經常受到網絡攻擊，但到目前為止還沒有造成大停電?！懊刻於加嗅槍﹃P鍵基礎設施的攻擊，“就像對銀行系統(tǒng)的攻擊每天24小時都在發(fā)生一樣?！?
事實上，Tansy指出，互聯網是建立在美國軍方發(fā)明的一種安全模式上。他解釋說:“互聯網的想法是建立一個分散的系統(tǒng)，建立一種機制，當你在網絡的一小部分發(fā)生不利情況時，你可以檢測到?！蔽艺J為，分布式能源具有同樣的特點。如果發(fā)生了什么事，你可以把它隔離開來。
4、正在進行的工作
這并不是說Tansy不關心網絡安全，SunSpec聯盟現在正持續(xù)關注華為這一事件，并與Sandia國家實驗室、國家可再生能源實驗室(NREL)還有其他國家實驗室合作開展這一事件的相關工作。Tansy解釋說:“這個行業(yè)正竭盡全力維護秩序?！?
盡管他表明了對網絡安全和電網存在國家安全方面的擔憂，但他不贊成禁止特定公司作為解決方案的想法?！肮铝⒁患夜镜南敕ㄊ怯薮赖?，”Tansy說。“他們只是其中之一。那種認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，一直在積極否認這一威脅。
Tansy說:“讓我們處理當下真正的緊急情況，不要混淆我們對政治和與中國貿易平衡的任何看法?！?
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
