undefined | Better HN

0 pointstraceroute661y ago0 comments

> The fact taking it out takes out the entire airport: not so much! These kind of things usually aren’t dependent on a single substation.

Let me re-phrase that for you:

It only took down the airport because the airport clearly did insufficient capacity planning in terms of backup mechanisms.

How can I be so confident ?

Because that exact same substation serves a number of large datacentres in the vicinity.

Due to the grid constraints previously discussed here, many of those same datacentres take ALL their feeds (A,B,C etc.) off that one substation, the only difference is the cables are diversely routed. Not their choice, it was imposed on them by the grid.

They have ALL been without ANY electrical feeds all day. I know that for a fact.

HOWEVER, those same datacentres have been running non-stop like nothing happened. I know that for a fact.

Why, because they have N+1 generators (which are regularly tested) with at least 48 hours of fuel, which was topped up this morning as soon as it became clear it was a major incident and with multiple fuel deliveries already pre-scheduled from multiple independent suppliers. I know that for a fact.

The grid are of course very busy trying to work some magic to re-arrange things to get the datacentres back online. Meanwhile the datacentres are very happy to keep ticking away on generator power for as long as it takes, its not a problem for them, its an event they plan, prepare and practice for.

Heathrow could have done the same. They could have added generator plants here and there over the years when they re-built terminals and such like.

They didn't, or at least they didn't do so with sufficient capacity.

Maybe Heathrow also fell behind on their generator maintenance and testing regimes. Who knows...

There are people out there who say it is because their motto is "spend little, charge a lot", so they did de-minimis, prefering to focus on maximising revenue generating space. I could not possibly comment.

0 comments

michh1y ago

Sure, no argument there, but the fact is there was a weakness there and a weakness that would be considered a threat to national security if it were to get out - before today

traceroute66OP1y ago

> weakness that would be considered a threat to national security if it were to get out - before today

If it was considered a "threat to national security", that substation site would have been much better secured.

In addition, if it was a "threat to national security", the site location would not be on open public databases, it would be on List X.

As it stands, the substation site "security" consists of two low, easily scalable, fences. And probably some CCTV. That's about it.

Security by obscurity is not security. We are in 2025, you have streetview and satellite photos.

Anybody who knows anything about electricity distribution could look at that substation and tell you it was pretty important given the large size of transformers located there.

It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to see Heathrow is minutes away and put two and two together.

And if you think the bad guys don't have the ability to give some poorly paid maintenance guy at the electricity company some cash in relation for extra detail, I've got an igloo to sell you.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse