Solar Storm Threat

[nathanthemayor 1,263]

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2014102435022/life-and-science/energy-and-environment/solar-storm-14-times-larger-than-earth-could-unleash-a-society-crippling-electromagnetic-pulse.html

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/what-are-you-going-to-do-when-a-massive-emp-blast-fries-the-u-s-electrical-grid

^It's very scary in my opinion, especially because the government has no plan to deal with it if it happens..... 

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Well if such an event happens then I'm gonna smoke myself silly. I don't want to know what life is like without electricity and the Mad Max aftermath.

[Hotwheeler 409]

Mjep,we all forget very fast about what kind of threads might come from the universe.May it be meteors that are sneaking towards earth without being noticed when they come from the suns direction or the aforementioned solar storm with a large flare.

What a coincidense that in yesterdays Doctor Who episode earth had an massive overnight reforestation which came to protect the earth from a large solar flare.

So guys,if you are going out of the house and notice a sudden forest in front of your door keep calm and....stay away from the local zoo.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Governments are helpless in the face of nature.  That has been apparent since the time of King Canute, who failed to order the tide to not come in.  If anyone expects a government to save them, they are missing the point of government.  The government in western countries is at best a representative oligarchy, which basically means it gets is funding and authority from the citizens.

 

Now, ask yourself what you would do if there was a civilization ending natural event.

 

Without modern pharmaceuticals, I would probably die in about a month or less.

[Meg 368]

The world has been about to end, for various reasons, for my entire life and I'm probably old enough to be your grandmother.  (not you Nonny)

 

It's been one thing after another that's going to come and end us all.    I got burned out on doomsday scenarios several decades back.

 

There is not a lot we can do about solar flares.   We have no control over the sun.

 

Do we have control over how much electricity we use?  Sure, to a point.    As was noted in the article, this event wouldn't bother the Amish a bit.   Problem is, there isn't enough space on the planet for us all to live like the Amish.   People are crammed into cities and cities need electricity to function.

 

If it comes to the point where the only people who make it are the survivalists in the woods, so be it.  I have no particular desire to live in that society.

[Tropod 144]

Reminds me of Terminator movie........make sure you're wearing 2million SPF sunblock..... oh & shades

[Huston 5,800]

Reminds me of Terminator movie........make sure you're wearing 2million SPF sunblock..... oh & shades

 

Solar Flare's don't actually affect us (or anything organic) in any real physically damaging way. What we're really worried about would be the damage it does to our electronics, communications and power grids. Knowing a solar flare of a high magnitude were to come our way, the damage it could do could be alleviated or avoided if political/economic bureaurcracy didn't get in the way.

 

I could only imagine the world would be an anarchic nightmare after a blast of EMP.

[iLoveMusic 66]

Now this is fascinating to me. I studied and researched solar storms and the effects of electromagnetism on power grids a few years ago. If any of you get the chance, look up Solar Storm of 1859 on Wikipedia. Very interesting read. We haven't seen one of that magnitude ever since, or even close. Only a small handful of very weak solar storms in May 1921 (affected North America and Europe), and March 1989 (affected Quebec, Canada). Even both of those crippled power grids in those areas, as electrical substation switchers were tripped during the fluctuation of the Earth's magnetosphere. 

 

Last year, I paid a visit (guided tour) of NASA's Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex in a very remote portion of the Mojave Desert, about 2 1/2 hours from me. We were shown massive active radar dishes, several enormous computer rooms, a switching station, and a few other interesting areas. When time came to ask the tour guide questions, I asked (in private) about NASA's knowledge of solar storms, how they monitor them, and if they are prepared for such events of any scale. I asked about something I had researched about, known as electromagnetic shielding equipment, which had to be used during weapons testing during the cold war to protect measuring equipment during atomic blasts. Even NASA's tour guide admitted that while NASA has knowledge of solar storms (which we both referred to using the more scientific term "Coronal Mass Ejections"), they do not have any sort of shielding equipment available, nor does any of the world's basic electrical infrastructure. So yes, basically, we're screwed if this comes up.

 

Have fun with that! 

[hym 358]

This is more of an urban legend than a credible threat.  Is it technically possible?  Yes.  Is it likely to happen?  Not really.

 

The concern is that an EMP is going to induce a voltage inside the transformer windings themselves, generating eddy currents that overheat the transformer windings and cause physical damage to them.  While that's theoretically possible, no one has been able to prove that it would happen.  Furthermore, major transformers are tested against something potentially much more dangerous to them: direct lighting stroke.  A direct lightning stroke will do far more damage to a transformer than anything other than a self-sustaining fault or a fire.

 

I would also like to know some information about numbers and classifications.  Everyone is focused on the EHV transformers, but how is that classification defined?  Are we talking about all the transformers 345kV and above, or are we basing it on the corona calculations for the 230kV transformers and up?  Second, why are we only looking at the EHV transformers?  The bulk power system is not just EHV systems and up.  It's everything from 100kV and up.  Most of your major industries are connected to the bulk power system at 138kV and 230kV levels.  No one keeps spares of these transformer levels either, and these transformers also have 1-2 year lead times on them.  Additionally, your utilities don't typically take EHV systems and connect them directly to distribution systems.  They connect them through the 138kV and 230kV networks.  Your non-EHV transformers are going to be just as vulnerable as your EHV transformers, they take years to replace, and no one seems to be the least bit concerned about them.

 

In short, I seriously question how much the individuals talking about this actually know what they are talking about, as they are missing some rather obvious holes in characterizing the risk and some obvious holes in the proposed protection plan.

[iLoveMusic 66]

This is more of an urban legend than a credible threat.  Is it technically possible?  Yes.  Is it likely to happen?  Not really.

 

The concern is that an EMP is going to induce a voltage inside the transformer windings themselves, generating eddy currents that overheat the transformer windings and cause physical damage to them.  While that's theoretically possible, no one has been able to prove that it would happen.  Furthermore, major transformers are tested against something potentially much more dangerous to them: direct lighting stroke.  A direct lightning stroke will do far more damage to a transformer than anything other than a self-sustaining fault or a fire.

 

I would also like to know some information about numbers and classifications.  Everyone is focused on the EHV transformers, but how is that classification defined?  Are we talking about all the transformers 345kV and above, or are we basing it on the corona calculations for the 230kV transformers and up?  Second, why are we only looking at the EHV transformers?  The bulk power system is not just EHV systems and up.  It's everything from 100kV and up.  Most of your major industries are connected to the bulk power system at 138kV and 230kV levels.  No one keeps spares of these transformer levels either, and these transformers also have 1-2 year lead times on them.  Additionally, your utilities don't typically take EHV systems and connect them directly to distribution systems.  They connect them through the 138kV and 230kV networks.  Your non-EHV transformers are going to be just as vulnerable as your EHV transformers, they take years to replace, and no one seems to be the least bit concerned about them.

 

In short, I seriously question how much the individuals talking about this actually know what they are talking about, as they are missing some rather obvious holes in characterizing the risk and some obvious holes in the proposed protection plan.

The transformers aren't the issue, at least since that's not what I read caused the outages in Canada during the 1989 event. It was the substations (I imagine there's more that can go wrong at a substation than a transformer, however, I'm not an expert on power grids by any means and I make mistakes too). And if transformers are tested against direct lightning strokes, then why does the power go out almost every time lightning strikes them? Then the DWP has to go over there and fix the blown transformers (which they at least seem to do rather quickly here). Transformers also don't seem to fare well during our heat waves, the wires between them sag and occasionally one of the transformers "just stops working". For all I know it's because some of our transformers are so old, that the metal structure is visibly corroded (they are supposed to be gray, not dirty-orange, correct?) as they were constructed in the 1940s. 

 

I do believe it is more of a credible threat than an urban legend, although I agree with you on that what everyone is worried will happen is not very likely, at least not this time. The articles running this story say that this event would be the strongest in only 25 years (presuming that they're referring to the 1989 event) - and that was a relatively weak one. Regardless, we have no plan in the event of a potential electromagnetic disaster. Hard for many to take seriously as it's never happened on such a grand scale before (at least not since 1859), it creates a normalcy bias.

[hym 358]

The transformers aren't the issue, at least since that's not what I read caused the outages in Canada during the 1989 event. It was the substations (I imagine there's more that can go wrong at a substation than a transformer, however, I'm not an expert on power grids by any means and I make mistakes too).

 

Moment of nomenclature:  In the world of power engineering, an electric station is classified by its transformers (or lack thereof).  A substation, by definition, must have 1 or more transformers in it.  Stations that do not contain transformers are switching stations.  In a substation, the transformers are the single most important piece of equipment, and everything about the substation's design and operation revolves around the transformers.  In a switching station, everything revolves around the circuit breakers.

 

As for the Canada incident, it had nothing to do with any substation.  The geomagnetic storm basically created a ground fault under Quebec, and as ground faults tend to do when they have poor earth transmission characteristics, the fault looked for an overhead transmission line as a path of least resistance.  A nearby EHV transmission line served as that path of least resistance.  Transmission line relaying detected abnormal operating conditions and triggered an emergency breaker opening to de-energize the line and clear the fault.

 

To those without experience in power engineering, this may sound like an odd thing to say, but that geomagnetic storm did not "knock out the grid."  The grid designed exactly as it was supposed to, namely, in the face of potentially damaging operating conditions, take itself out of service to protect itself and hopefully clear the physical phenomenon that was creating the aberrant operating conditions.  That is normal behavior for both the US and Canadian electric grids, and they do it a lot more than anyone realizes.

 

And if transformers are tested against direct lightning strokes, then why does the power go out almost every time lightning strikes them? Then the DWP has to go over there and fix the blown transformers (which they at least seem to do rather quickly here). Transformers also don't seem to fare well during our heat waves, the wires between them sag and occasionally one of the transformers "just stops working". For all I know it's because some of our transformers are so old, that the metal structure is visibly corroded (they are supposed to be gray, not dirty-orange, correct?) as they were constructed in the 1940s. 

 

"Tested against" does not mean the power will stay on.  It is a measure of whether the equipment will be damaged by the incident, not whether it will maintain service continuity.  In the event of a lightning strike, protective relaying will detect the transient surge and immediately disconnect the transformer to isolate and protect it.  When the protective relaying is satisfied that the transient conditions are over, it will automatically reclose the transformer to restore service.  (Assuming your utility has a policy of reclosing a transformer after a fault.)  Additionally, transformers are rarely ever struck by electricity.  The risk of damage to a transformer from a lightning strike is far higher than what the utility is willing to accept, even with manufacturer certifications of survivability.  Towards that end, all substations have built-in lightning protection systems that act as sacrificial contact points to protect the equipment underneath them.  In a properly designed substation, the equipment under the mast towers will never be struck by lightning because it is shielded by overhead protection components.

 

I do believe it is more of a credible threat than an urban legend, although I agree with you on that what everyone is worried will happen is not very likely, at least not this time. The articles running this story say that this event would be the strongest in only 25 years (presuming that they're referring to the 1989 event) - and that was a relatively weak one. Regardless, we have no plan in the event of a potential electromagnetic disaster. Hard for many to take seriously as it's never happened on such a grand scale before (at least not since 1859), it creates a normalcy bias.

 

We have attempted to recreate the conditions of the Carrington event in laboratories and determine whether transformers would be subject to the induced voltage conditions necessary to damage them.  While there is evidence that the transformers would experience induced voltages and some degree of internally circulating current, there is no evidence that anyone has been able to get the level up to the point that it would damage the transformer.  In fact, under energized operating conditions, it is entirely possible the transformer protection relaying would never notice anything out of the ordinary.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Wow, that's some impressive information there hym.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The last CME which occurred in the last month or so was theoretically big enough to cause a Quebec-type incident but for all the screaming in the press, it did not.  I truly wish the fourth estate would stop trying to make the news and stick to reporting it.

[iLoveMusic 66]

Moment of nomenclature:  In the world of power engineering, an electric station is classified by its transformers (or lack thereof).  A substation, by definition, must have 1 or more transformers in it.  Stations that do not contain transformers are switching stations.  In a substation, the transformers are the single most important piece of equipment, and everything about the substation's design and operation revolves around the transformers.  In a switching station, everything revolves around the circuit breakers.

 

As for the Canada incident, it had nothing to do with any substation.  The geomagnetic storm basically created a ground fault under Quebec, and as ground faults tend to do when they have poor earth transmission characteristics, the fault looked for an overhead transmission line as a path of least resistance.  A nearby EHV transmission line served as that path of least resistance.  Transmission line relaying detected abnormal operating conditions and triggered an emergency breaker opening to de-energize the line and clear the fault.

 

To those without experience in power engineering, this may sound like an odd thing to say, but that geomagnetic storm did not "knock out the grid."  The grid designed exactly as it was supposed to, namely, in the face of potentially damaging operating conditions, take itself out of service to protect itself and hopefully clear the physical phenomenon that was creating the aberrant operating conditions.  That is normal behavior for both the US and Canadian electric grids, and they do it a lot more than anyone realizes.

 

 

"Tested against" does not mean the power will stay on.  It is a measure of whether the equipment will be damaged by the incident, not whether it will maintain service continuity.  In the event of a lightning strike, protective relaying will detect the transient surge and immediately disconnect the transformer to isolate and protect it.  When the protective relaying is satisfied that the transient conditions are over, it will automatically reclose the transformer to restore service.  (Assuming your utility has a policy of reclosing a transformer after a fault.)  Additionally, transformers are rarely ever struck by electricity.  The risk of damage to a transformer from a lightning strike is far higher than what the utility is willing to accept, even with manufacturer certifications of survivability.  Towards that end, all substations have built-in lightning protection systems that act as sacrificial contact points to protect the equipment underneath them.  In a properly designed substation, the equipment under the mast towers will never be struck by lightning because it is shielded by overhead protection components.

Ok, but that still produces the same result - power outage. So from what you're telling me, these transformers and substations are built with "fail-safe" protection mechanisms in mind, correct? To save the equipment from damage, but power will be lost anyway. And you believe that even a solar storm of 1859 magnitude directed at Earth could possibly do nothing at all? I haven't heard that before, however, I have heard Hollywood getting extensive criticism from scientists and engineers about their highly inaccurate portayal of EMP's (and the effects of such events on power grids and electronics), which makes sense. Hollywood will inflate anything to make more money from it. Since you seem to know what you're talking about, I assume you're on the side of the scientists and engineers. And just out of curiosity, how do you know so much about electrical infrastructure? 

The last CME which occurred in the last month or so was theoretically big enough to cause a Quebec-type incident but for all the screaming in the press, it did not.  I truly wish the fourth estate would stop trying to make the news and stick to reporting it.

I don't have any source for this, but I've read in the past that many CME's of varying magnitudes have occurred in the last 25 years and done nothing at all. I suppose everything has to be just right for what everyone's thinking will happen, to actually happen. 

[blunder 1,080]

 

"Tested against" does not mean the power will stay on.  It is a measure of whether the equipment will be damaged by the incident, not whether it will maintain service continuity.  In the event of a lightning strike, protective relaying will detect the transient surge and immediately disconnect the transformer to isolate and protect it.  When the protective relaying is satisfied that the transient conditions are over, it will automatically reclose the transformer to restore service.

Ok, but that still produces the same result - power outage. So from what you're telling me, these transformers and substations are built with "fail-safe" protection mechanisms in mind, correct? To save the equipment from damage, but power will be lost anyway. And you believe that even a solar storm of 1859 magnitude directed at Earth could possibly do nothing at all?

 

Not the same result at all.  One is an exceedingly minor interruption in electric service.  The other is a catastrophic scenario where there is no electric service for a looooooooong time.

 

If your power goes out for a little bit (like in a wind or ice storm) whoopdy frickin doo: happens all the time.  If the power grid is sufficiently damaged that significant parts of it have to be physically replaced then our lazy society is completely screwed.  Especially if it's down long enough for electric refrigeration to fail and if enough of the grid is down that electronic fund transfers are unavailable.

 

It's this scenario that the press posits will happen in a solar flare, and hym is telling you that this is the kind of thing the grid is designed to protect itself against due to the nature of the consequences.  Hym isn't saying that 'nothing' will happen, hym is saying the large scale catastrophic destruction of the grid is more of an overwrought media fantasy than a scientific reality.

 

I actually think that for some people, such as those that are living in a house, losing power a couple times a year is a good thing.  It's a reminder that if you can't make it 24-48 hours in your own home without electricity then you need to go spend your money on some things that will come in very handy in the aftermath of a large natural disaster.  For those living in large housing such as apartments, and especially the elderly and disabled, it's another story, of course.

[hym 358]

@iLoveMusic:

An outage isn't the problem. Recovery from an outage is a straightforward thing. Utilities do it all the time. The problem is when the equipment is damaged and cannot be returned to service. Then you have real problems. The utility will gladly cut off power to millions of people if it means saving the equipment.

I have researched the Carrington event before. I was curious and wanted to know for myself. In short, scientists think they know the conditions of the Carrington event and this information has been used by transformer manufacturers to attempt to replicate the conditions in the lab. The conditions the transformers experienced were well within design parameters.

I have a Bachelor's of Science in Electrical Engineering degree. I have had the privilege of working with two of North America's top transformer engineers, one of whom previously built substations in the Middle East and was Siemens' technical expert for its transformers. Additionally, I have had several incredibly good electrical engineering mentors. Plus since I work in the industry, I have access to a lot of information the general public does not know, let alone even know exists.

[iLoveMusic 66]

@iLoveMusic:

An outage isn't the problem. Recovery from an outage is a straightforward thing. Utilities do it all the time. The problem is when the equipment is damaged and cannot be returned to service. Then you have real problems. The utility will gladly cut off power to millions of people if it means saving the equipment.

I have researched the Carrington event before. I was curious and wanted to know for myself. In short, scientists think they know the conditions of the Carrington event and this information has been used by transformer manufacturers to attempt to replicate the conditions in the lab. The conditions the transformers experienced were well within design parameters.

I have a Bachelor's of Science in Electrical Engineering degree. I have had the privilege of working with two of North America's top transformer engineers, one of whom previously built substations in the Middle East and was Siemens' technical expert for its transformers. Additionally, I have had several incredibly good electrical engineering mentors. Plus since I work in the industry, I have access to a lot of information the general public does not know, let alone even know exists.

 

Heh, sometimes the utility will cut off power for other reasons too - I remember back in August 2001, the power companies here were having some sort of dispute - I can't remember about what exactly. But while they were having their spat, the electricity for large parts of my town and the neighboring one were shut off every night for about 3 weeks, from 8 PM to 5 AM. They were fighting, and we got screwed for it. Apparently, this was fully legal. 

 

I'm interested in stuff like this, so of course I'd like to know more. Probably not for a career path but I like having this sort of knowledge in general. Thanks for clearing some things up for me. 

 

 

"Tested against" does not mean the power will stay on.  It is a measure of whether the equipment will be damaged by the incident, not whether it will maintain service continuity.  In the event of a lightning strike, protective relaying will detect the transient surge and immediately disconnect the transformer to isolate and protect it.  When the protective relaying is satisfied that the transient conditions are over, it will automatically reclose the transformer to restore service.

Ok, but that still produces the same result - power outage. So from what you're telling me, these transformers and substations are built with "fail-safe" protection mechanisms in mind, correct? To save the equipment from damage, but power will be lost anyway. And you believe that even a solar storm of 1859 magnitude directed at Earth could possibly do nothing at all?

 

Not the same result at all.  One is an exceedingly minor interruption in electric service.  The other is a catastrophic scenario where there is no electric service for a looooooooong time.

 

If your power goes out for a little bit (like in a wind or ice storm) whoopdy frickin doo: happens all the time.  If the power grid is sufficiently damaged that significant parts of it have to be physically replaced then our lazy society is completely screwed.  Especially if it's down long enough for electric refrigeration to fail and if enough of the grid is down that electronic fund transfers are unavailable.

 

It's this scenario that the press posits will happen in a solar flare, and hym is telling you that this is the kind of thing the grid is designed to protect itself against due to the nature of the consequences.  Hym isn't saying that 'nothing' will happen, hym is saying the large scale catastrophic destruction of the grid is more of an overwrought media fantasy than a scientific reality.

 

I actually think that for some people, such as those that are living in a house, losing power a couple times a year is a good thing.  It's a reminder that if you can't make it 24-48 hours in your own home without electricity then you need to go spend your money on some things that will come in very handy in the aftermath of a large natural disaster.  For those living in large housing such as apartments, and especially the elderly and disabled, it's another story, of course.

 

 

I see (I think). So you're both saying that the media is putting too much faith into the catastrophic scenario when the odds of that, at least compared to other possible outcomes under the same circumstances, are low.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Thanks for the reference to the Carrington event.  Looked it up and the wiki article states that the periodicity for them is something like five centuries.  Won't likely see one in our lifetimes.

 

Much more worried about the failure of the grid like the one in 1967 when some lily-livered operator pulled his station off the grid when it was trying to stabilize itself and brought down the whole North Eastern grid.  The initial oscillations were caused by a blown breaker at Sir Adam Beck No. 2 hydro station at Queenston, Ont.  I was on the Toronto subway at the time.  I had to walk to the station, then walk home and the lights were out.  I seem to remember that it was otherwise a bright night.

[hym 358]

I see (I think). So you're both saying that the media is putting too much faith into the catastrophic scenario when the odds of that, at least compared to other possible outcomes under the same circumstances, are low.

 

Basically.  It is technically possible for such an incident to occur, but no one has a credible scenario under which it would happen.

 

Much more worried about the failure of the grid like the one in 1967 when some lily-livered operator pulled his station off the grid when it was trying to stabilize itself and brought down the whole North Eastern grid.  The initial oscillations were caused by a blown breaker at Sir Adam Beck No. 2 hydro station at Queenston, Ont.  I was on the Toronto subway at the time.  I had to walk to the station, then walk home and the lights were out.  I seem to remember that it was otherwise a bright night.

 

According to Wikipedia, the cause of the outage was an improperly set overcurrent protection relay on Sir Adam Beck's transmission line.  The loss of that line overloaded complementary transmission lines and shut them down also.  At that point, one can't really blame anyone because the entire grid is in chaos and your protective relaying systems are going to be the determining factor on whether you stay online or shut down.  (And if your protective relaying is bad, it's just a roll of the dice.)

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I think there has been a lot of fixing in the grid since that incident.  There hasn't been another one.

[blunder 1,080]

I see (I think). So you're both saying that the media is putting too much faith into the catastrophic scenario when the odds of that, at least compared to other possible outcomes under the same circumstances, are low.

 

 

Just like hym said, aye.

 

Another problem is that media coverage and what passes for public 'science education' programming revolves largely around things that Will Kill Us All!  Both because they generate more interest and things perceived as threats are easier to receive some kind of funding for study. 

 

For instance, how much crap have we seen on the history channel or elsewhere about how Yellowstone is a supervolcano that will erupt and Kill Us All! (it won't, none of it's previous explosions were an extinction level event), even though there's zero, abso-frickin-lutely zero, chance it will have a VEI-8 explosion in the lifetimes of modern civilizations (the magma chamber is on a million year cycle and is only 1/4 full).  By contrast, ever hear of Campi Flegrei?  Didn't think so.  It's a 13km wide Caldera that lies under the western end of Naples, Italy.  There are literally hundreds of thousands of people that live on the floor of the caldera, and close to 4 million people in the Naples metro area.  It had catastrophic explosions 15,000 36,000 and 47,000 years ago (see the trend?), and has been active for half of the last 15,000 years.  But it's been almost 500 years since the last minor above surface activity (a small cinder cone was built in 1538) so people don't pay it any mind.  The italian government likes to pretend it doesn't even exist and actively interferes with researchers trying to study it.  But it will go boom within the lifetimes of our civilizations and when it does there's even odds it will kill over a million people.

 

Which does the tv tell you all about?  The one that's closer to home and the one that has the theoretical potentional to be worse (regardless of how small chance that theory has of ever coming true).

 

A more immediate example is the ebola coverage.  Look at just the extreme amount of attention and even government action it's getting.  The tv says that It Will Kill Us All! Yes it's one of the most dangerous and horrifying diseases on the planet but because of many factors it will almost certainly never become widespread in a country with a first world health system and a non-tropical climate.  Yet it has everyone's attention when you can count the cases in the US on one hand.  By contrast we have a virus that kills 20,000+ in the US every single year.  It's called the flu.  How often does the flu even make the nightly news, let alone demand all the attention that ebola does right now?

 

But to get back to the current topic, sure we could have a solar flare.  We frequently do and the frequently have consequences, like interfering with satellite communications a bit.  But media gets so much more attention when they can talk about something and like it to a scenario that Will Kill Us All! Sure there's some kind of theoretical chance whatever the disaster story of the day is could happen, but you're infinitely more likely to die in a traffic accident.

[iLoveMusic 66]

I don't think there's any disaster that will single-handedly wipe out the human race. We'll do that ourselves. A disaster may help for sure, but we're a (self) destructive species, we'll do ourselves in. I believe we're "circling the drain" right now, in slow motion.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The only possible ELE that is totally beyond our control would be an asteroid strike similar to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs.  Since we now have an active watch for NEOs big enough to do that, we can probably deflect or destroy any such object.  Think what kind of push a H-bomb, even a small one, could give a celestial body if detonated in the right spot.  Newton's third law still applies.

[iLoveMusic 66]

The only possible ELE that is totally beyond our control would be an asteroid strike similar to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs.  Since we now have an active watch for NEOs big enough to do that, we can probably deflect or destroy any such object.  Think what kind of push a H-bomb, even a small one, could give a celestial body if detonated in the right spot.  Newton's third law still applies.

 

I wonder though - even if we did that to deflect or destroy an asteroid heading directly for Earth, what about the chunks of asteroid that result from the impact/explosion? Wouldn't they still be heading this way? Surely you can't wipe them all out, depending on the size of the asteroid. Many of those would possibly still be large enough to not completely break up as they enter Earth's atmosphere.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well, the idea is to change the orbit of the whole shebang.  Instead of blowing it bits, why not just give it a big shove and change the orbit slightly, maybe enough to drop it into the sun?

 

Given enough time, we could actually install ion drives on it and using the gases from the ambient environment give it a rather faint but permanent push.  Space in the solar system is hardly a vacuum compared to interstellar space or we could use the rock itself as fuel by converting its mass into ions which could be done using a couple of lasers powered by a Plutonium hotshot reactor.

 

That's enough Physics 101 for today.

[iLoveMusic 66]

I think there has been a lot of fixing in the grid since that incident.  There hasn't been another one.

Like what? The 1989 event was "just right" for Quebec, Canada, and it was weak (there was a similar one that happened in 2003, causing interference with satellite communications and brief power outages in Sweden). I don't believe the power grid has been fixed at all, and is still completely vulnerable to the "perfect" solar storm. Some of the transformers down here have rust on them. Go on YouTube and search for videos of electrical substations occasionally catching on fire and the subsequent explosions that follow. And although I haven't heard of it happening here yet, they're also vulnerable to terrorism/attacks/sabotage. Given that the United States doesn't really pay much attention to it's infrastructure, I'd say it's really outdated and in need of maintenance.

 

The chance is small but it's definitely there - and I believe it should be taken seriously. I haven't done any research on why electromagnetic shielding isn't being used in electronic devices. Maybe it would be too expensive, or it simply isn't practical, I don't know. Saying that the chance of something like 1859 or stronger is too small or negligible to even bother is counter-productive IMO. It's good to be prepared for the worst, within reason. Things can get very ugly for human civilization if you completely take away electricity for a long time (or indefinitely, but that's for another thread).

 

I just realized something else too: Even if we got lucky during a particularly severe CME aimed at Earth, and nothing really happened here on the ground - what about our satellites? They would be the first to know and the first to be affected. Global positioning satellites and communications satellites are the backbone of modern industrial civilization. This includes internet connectivity. If that goes down even for just certain regions, not only will people lose their internet connections, but the power plants will as well. Power Plants, dams, gas stations, subterranean infrastructure, water pumping stations, national defense systems, air traffic controllers, all credit card-based transactions, even Wall Street - today many of these are mostly, if not completely reliant on an always-on internet connection. This goes pretty far, I'd say. 

 

This National Geographic article from 2011 is very informative: What If the Biggest Solar Storm in Record Happened Today? (Repeat of 1859 Carrington Event would devastate modern world, experts say.) Of course, the chances of a total repeat of that event in our lifetime is rather low, but as I said earlier, it wouldn't hurt to prepare for such a scenario.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

 

<snip>

 

This National Geographic article from 2011 is very informative: What If the Biggest Solar Storm in Record Happened Today? (Repeat of 1859 Carrington Event would devastate modern world, experts say.) Of course, the chances of a total repeat of that event in our lifetime is rather low, but as I said earlier, it wouldn't hurt to prepare for such a scenario.

 

The cost is prohibitive.  Having all that equipment lying in a warehouse deteriorating is a bit of a mug's game.  A full set of backup spares for the North American grid alone would probably jack up utility bills significantly.

[hym 358]

Like what? The 1989 event was "just right" for Quebec, Canada, and it was weak (there was a similar one that happened in 2003, causing interference with satellite communications and brief power outages in Sweden). I don't believe the power grid has been fixed at all, and is still completely vulnerable to the "perfect" solar storm. Some of the transformers down here have rust on them. Go on YouTube and search for videos of electrical substations occasionally catching on fire and the subsequent explosions that follow. And although I haven't heard of it happening here yet, they're also vulnerable to terrorism/attacks/sabotage. Given that the United States doesn't really pay much attention to it's infrastructure, I'd say it's really outdated and in need of maintenance.

 

Quebec also sits on a massive rock shield that greatly reduces soil conductivity, thus artificially aggravating the ground fault current split factor.  That same incident along the Texas Gulf Coast would have had absolutely no effect, as the soil is so water logged that it will take almost any level of current you can give it.

 

Furthermore, the blackout that A Nonny Moose mentioned earlier did quite a bit to improve electric reliability.  It created the modern era of electric reliability councils, led to improved voltage and current sensing capabilities, paved the foundation for modern SCADA systems, and when the 2003 Northeast Blackout occurred, the foundation was in place for the creation of a national electric reliability organization, giving NERC some authority to harmonize US and Canadian efforts to improve grid reliability.  There is still decades of work to do, but utilities have made significant strides in spite of the ongoing pressures they face.

 

Also, FWIW, a transformer that is not abused will offer approximately 70 years of service.  The US transformer fleet has an average service age of 48 years.  In fact, a transformer that doesn't last 50 years is considered to have prematurely failed.  The driving factor in all of this is the condition of the windings.  The condition of the transformer tank is almost totally irrelevant to a transformer's service life, hence why no one bothers maintaining the tank unless there is credible danger of a leak.

 

Saying that the chance of something like 1859 or stronger is too small or negligible to even bother is counter-productive IMO. It's good to be prepared for the worst, within reason. 

 

The US bulk power system is a complex machine.  It is managed by the principles of responsible and ethical engineering decision making, combined with the knowledge that comes from decades of operational experience.  Furthermore, the federal government has extremely harsh penalties for those who willfully ignore federal regulations and industry guidelines for what constitutes proper management of the bulk power system.

 

One of these standards deals with the proper allocation of resources to perform hazard mitigation.  Engineers are well familiar with the concept of diminishing returns, and the point at which returns no longer justify the cost is usually when they will decide the more responsible action is to live with the potential problem rather than waste excessive resources attempting to mitigate it.  As I mentioned earlier, scientists believe they know the conditions of the Carrington event, and efforts to study it in a lab have shown no meaningful negative impact on transformer operation.  Spending billions on a solution you don't know will work to fix a problem that you will likely never have is not a reasonable thing to do.  It can also get your utility company in legal trouble with the relevant government authorities, as utilities often have legal obligations to keep their costs to a minimum.

 

Global positioning satellites and communications satellites are the backbone of modern industrial civilization. This includes internet connectivity. If that goes down even for just certain regions, not only will people lose their internet connections, but the power plants will as well. Power Plants, dams, gas stations, subterranean infrastructure, water pumping stations, national defense systems, air traffic controllers, all credit card-based transactions, even Wall Street - today many of these are mostly, if not completely reliant on an always-on internet connection. This goes pretty far, I'd say.

 

While the loss of GPS and communication satellites would hurt, it would not be a killing blow.  We've had them interrupted before, and we're still chugging along just fine.

 

The US bulk power system utilizes a hybrid system.  Modern power management systems offer IEC 61850 networking, which is an Internet-compatible protocol.  Additionally, the US bulk power system utilizes a Power Line Carrier Communication standard that exists exclusively for its own use and permits the relevant balancing authority to maintain communications and control of the connected entities. Furthermore, in the event of the loss of control signaling, power plants can switch to "isoch control" as a means of maintaining grid stability and operation.  (Although this is admittedly prone to problems across wide networks.)

 

As for many of the other scenarios mentioned, critical infrastructure is usually connected to the Internet directly through fiber optic cables, which are very resistant to signal degradation, especially when they are buried underground as part of the nation's fiber optic network.

[Duke87 1,070]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the issue at heart here is not a direct impact of particles from the sun to earth, but rather the earth's magnetic field shifting as a result of being hit by the shock wave.

 

In other words, the concern when it comes to the power grid is the induction of unwanted current due to magnetic fluctuations.

 

The question then becomes one of scale. This fluctuation may be strong enough to induce a lot of current in power lines that stretch for miles and miles, but not have any significant effect on transformers and other smaller objects. In other words, don't worry about your computer's hard drive being wiped by the event, or the computer itself sparking and catching fire.

 

The Carrington event induced current in telegraph lines, which resulted in some shocks to operators and buildings catching fire - but this was with a system that had little if any means of breaking a circuit in the event of a power surge. The modern power system has all sorts of circuit breakers both in buildings and along the grid that will trip automatically if there is a problem. So what it seems to me is a more likely real world consequence is that for the duration of the event the power would go out everywhere and all electronic communications would go dark. Which is pretty scary but the good news is that once the event ended most of these systems could probably start to be brought back online, and there wouldn't necessarily be much in the way of permanent damage.

 

The big issue then is how long it would take to get everything back online. Every vital piece of equipment would have to somehow be manually inspected before it can be put back into service. And power plants take time to start up once stopped. It's tough to put an exact timeframe but suffice to say the power would be out for a decent amount of time after the solar storm ends, much the way it might be out for a decent amount of time after a major Earthly storm.

 

You would also then have emergency responders needing to deal with electrical fires in buildings that are improperly isolated. Depending on how up to snuff everything in an area is there may end up being more of these than the fire department can handle, in which case all you can do is run away and watch everything burn. And then try to find shelter elsewhere in a world with no power.

 

The upshot is, anything that can operate off grid can still operate. Hospitals, police stations, etc. will switch to backup generators. Radio stations will switch to backup generation and can resume broadcasting as soon as the event ends. If you have a battery operated radio (or the radio in your car), you can tune in and listen. Given that pumping and treatment facilities will have backup generation, people will still have running water (although not hot water) unless they are on a well with no backup power source.

 

Other potential complications are seasonal. Were it to happen in the next few days it wouldn't be too bad in this regard in most places, but if it happens in the dead of winter the majority of buildings will have no heat until the power comes back. Likewise, if it happens at the height of summer, no air conditioning until the power comes back.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Meanwhile, we might as well enjoy the spectacular auroras we would get. 

 

We've had something like a century of power engineering now for the North American grid, and I, for one, am reassured.  What happens in Europe will hopefully be the same.  Since all this engineering doesn't fall into any national security classification that I am aware of, other grids around the world have probably taken advantage of the work done here.  If not, then there isn't much we can do about it.

 

Now, in a few million years, our main-sequence sun (class G) will likely become a red giant and eat everything out to around the orbit of Mars.  I don't think any of us will be around for that, and if there are any descendants and they haven't gotten away from this ball of dirt, then so be it.