Why does it have to be remote what's wrong with it being in-house? Besides a shut-off should never be able to be triggered remotely.
The same goes for digital emergency shut off buttons; all should be physical.
> Less-responsive power plants.
What? How is remote any more responsive than physical workers being in-house?
If power-plants operated efficiently back in the 50's without internet, they should be able to now without internet.
Nothing wrong with it being in house. But having a back-up is never bad.
> How is remote any more responsive than physical workers being in-house?
If the on-site workers are incapacitated. It's a remote (hehe) risk. But so is foreign hackers doing anything with our nukes.
> If power-plants operated efficiently back in the 50's without internet, they should be able to now without internet
If you're fine paying 50s power prices again, sure, I'm sure a power company would happily run their plants retro style.
It is always an increase in risk, in a security sense.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/electricity-its-wonderfully-afford...
$0.32 is $0.41 accoreit BLS, which is less than I'm paying today (I live somewhere with expensive electricity), so I'd enjoy the discount if they did!
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=0.32&year1=201...
Out of curiosity, what was the real power price where you live in the 60s?
But that is very geography dependant.
Why the special treatment for nuclear? Do you really think redlining a dam or storm-levee system would be less damaging?
Also, turning off internet connections means less-capable remote shut shut-off. Less-responsive power plants. Fewer eyes on telemetry.
We should be mindful of what is and isn't connected to the internet, and how it's firewalled and--if necessary--air gapped. That doesn't mean sprinting straight for the end zone.