this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
13 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

2167 readers
20 users here now

Post articles or questions about technology

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/30379477

The planned installation of 16 Chinese wind turbines off the German coast should be prevented on the grounds of public safety, business daily Handelsblatt reported based on an advisory paper from the German Institute for Defence and Strategic Studies (GIDS).

The analysis, commissioned by the defence ministry, warned of potential blackmail and said all legal options must be used to prevent plans to build the wind farm off the coast of Borkum in northwestern Germany. Hamburg-based asset manager Luxcara awarded the contract to a Chinese manufacturer.

"Unlike millions of solar panels, which today come almost exclusively from China, a single offshore wind farm with the capacity of an entire power plant in a strategically significant location is a much greater target for manipulation of the energy supply – and also for espionage," the business daily reported. The warning comes as wind farm operators increasingly turn to Chinese manufacturers amid tightening global supply chains.

[...]

GIDS warned of possible espionage through sensors, which could potentially track naval ships, submarines and aircraft. It also added that it could not be ruled out that the critical infrastructure would be unavailable in the event of a crisis or conflict. The European Commission has also expressed concerns over security and a growing dependence on China.

[...]

top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

16 wind turbines? This is ridiculous, considering all of their solar plants can be remotely disabled using a set of 6 radios, destabilizing the whole european power grid in a snap.

https://media.ccc.de/v/38c3-blinkencity-radio-controlling-street-lamps-and-power-plants

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

So because there's one vulnerability, they should ignore another one? Nah, that sounds like a bad faith argument.