Page 4


www.us-tech.com


Tech-Op-ed October, 2017 SOUNDING OFF


By Walter Salm Editor Emeritus


How Much Energy Is Enough? T


here has been a remarkable transition in the automobile-buying public in the U.S. All-electric vehicles are pushing their way to the top of the popularity list, and for good reason; they run clean and the fuel cost is


far less than gasoline. But, there is still a carbon footprint, just not quite so noticeable, since it resides in the power plant that generates the electricity that charges the car’s batteries. We’ve not been hearing quite so much about our carbon footprints late-


ly, especially since the USA officially pulled out of the Paris climate accord, but they didn’t miraculously go away by presidential decree. A carbon foot- print refers to the creation of greenhouse gases, and this happens whenever we burn anything. The biggest culprit is coal, and as a nation, we are still burning plenty of it, mainly because it’s so plentiful and so cheap. Growing up in a very cold part of the country, I recall only too vividly the


monthly visits by the coal delivery truck. It would back into our driveway and send a noisy load of coal down a metal chute that went through a narrow base- ment window into our coal bin. The furnace, planted in the geometric center of our basement floor, looked like an extraterrestrial octopus with its many round zinc-plated metal vents going off in all directions, reaching out to every room in our turn-of-the-century (1900) vintage house. In my early teens, it was my job at bedtime to make sure the coals in the furnace were properly banked to provide steady warmth all night. Then there was cooking gas. In our small town, we received “city” gas —


“manufactured” gas that was extracted from coal at the local gas plant. This resulted in mountains of “coke” — coal that had been processed and was no longer useful for burning in home furnaces. The coke was ultimately shipped to steel mills where it became an integral part of the steelmaking process. Around 1948-49, while I was still in high school, a technician from the Niag- ara Mohawk power company visited our house to bore out the gas burner openings on our kitchen stove. This was to adapt it for the “new” natural gas that was coming soon from Texas through a newly completed pipeline. Today, no one burns coal in the U.S., except the power plants, steel mills,


and the occasional tourist train. According to figures from the U.S. Energy In- formation Administration, coal is no longer the number one source of electric energy in the U.S. That honor now belongs to natural gas at 33.8 percent of our total utilities. Coal accounts for 30.4 percent, nuclear for 19.7 percent, and the total for renewables is only 14.9 percent. Petroleum (oil) is way down the list at 0.6 percent. Meanwhile, back on the highway, the biggest problem with today’s all-


electric automobiles continues to be the batteries. Most average-priced cars provide less than 100 miles (161 km) of range on one full battery charge. But the American driving public isn’t restricted to just a short 20-mile (32 km) round trips to the workplace — a claim made by one automaker’s website. When I commuted to my ad agency job at Bozell, the daily round trip was 100 miles (161 km) and then later to U.S. Tech my round trip was 180 miles (290 km) — absolute insanity. Fortunately, the computer and telecommuting soon came to my rescue. So far, the top-of-the-line Tesla and the Chevrolet Bolt are the only


electrics that offer a range in excess of 200 miles (322 km) on a full charge. But suppose I want to drive to Los Angeles? It’s 560 miles (900 km) away from where I live in Northern California. That’s three days away in a 200-mile electric, and two not-quite-full overnight charges. And then what about energy-hungry acces- sories like headlights, entertainment center and air conditioning? Won’t these creature comforts suck valuable miles from the vehicle’s total capabilities? It’s still a tradeoff between adding more battery weight to the car — which would in itself require more energy to accommodate the added weight — and the conven- ience of greater range. Granted, the batteries are getting better every day, but when will they be good enough? And what about winter weather when the cold- er temperatures reduce the batteries’ chemical activity? For serious cross-country driving, the only all-electric option that has the


potential to work well is the hydrogen fuel-cell car, which can fill its tank with 200 miles worth of H2 in five minutes or less. The problem here is the woeful lack of refueling infrastructure that is very slowly being corrected. The final answer looks to be at least 10 years down the line, and by then, all electric cars will be likely be autonomous, which eats up even more energy from the batteries or the fuel cell stack. For many of us, progress doesn’t come easily or soon enough. In the meantime, there’s always Amtrak. r


PUBLISHER’S NOTE


By Jacob Fattal Publisher


Securing the Industrial Internet of Things


T


he costly data breaches of recent years, most notably the Equifax disas- ter that was revealed in September, are becoming uncomfortably com- mon. It’s hard to tell whether hackers are getting smarter or companies


are getting lazier, or just plain stingy. It’s likely to be a bit of all three. In the case of Equifax, there was an apparent weakness in the company’s web appli- cation software that was made known and not remedied, allowing criminals to obtain swaths of personal information, accessed through the Internet. In 2010, perhaps best illustrating the severity of cyberattacks to date, the


virus Stuxnet wreaked havoc on Iran’s nuclear program. Stuxnet penetrated the PLCs running the country’s nuclear centrifuges and made them spin out of control, destroying nearly one fifth of them. This virus, introduced by flash drives, specifically targeted Siemens control software through Microsoft Win- dows, infected over 200,000 computers and ruined more than 1,000 machines. While malware is nothing new, the Stuxnet incident is certainly in a class of its own. The bridge from cyberattack to physical damage had been built. This has dangerous implications for Industry 4.0 and the Industrial IoT


(Internet of Things). As we network together more physical systems that rely on each other, their points of weakness multiply. Hackers don’t need to defeat an entire system, they need only to exploit a single weak point, be it a soft- ware bug, poor password, or an unwitting or disgruntled employee with secu- rity credentials. On the connected shop floor, it’s not hard to imagine how a criminal could


tamper with the information being sent through the production network. Be- sides just stealing information and IP and siphoning data, a hacker could send manipulated requests to the machines, which could easily result in destroyed product or pose a threat to workers. Once multiple factories are linked by the same programs, entire facilities could be shut down. By 2020, it’s expected that there will be more than 20 billion IoT-enabled


devices in the world. Every one of these devices is a potential tool for a clever cyber criminal. In October 2016, Mirai malware was shown later to have af- fected a host of devices that had been secured only by default passwords from their vendors. Easy pickings. At productronica 2017, Industry 4.0 is a main focal point. Benefits of the


concept are clear. Efficiency on the shop floor, process optimization, instant worldwide data access and control, greater automation, greater manufactur- ing flexibility, across-the-board reduced costs — the list goes on. Domestic trade shows in the U.S., such as The ASSEMBLY Show and MD&M Min- neapolis, which this issue also covers, service many robotics and automation companies — all part of Industry 4.0. Solutions are difficult, partly because we don’t yet know the extent of the


problem. As the IoT develops, we will gain a better understanding of how to protect our devices. However, as we’ve seen in the latest round of high-profile cyberattacks, we should have some seri- ous discussion, and find strong solu- tions, in our industry before it is too late. r


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124