> Were a similarly intense geomagnetic storm to occur today, it would likely seriously damage the electrical power grid, causing widespread outages and blackouts, as well as disrupting satellite communications.
Is this really true? I’m suspicious for a few reasons:
1. If it were true, I expect it would be a national security concern, and quickly remedied
2. While there is a lot more dependence on electrical connections, there’s also many more sources of disturbance now. So I suspect some of the failure modes are tested by “normal” human activity
3. EMI is a known risk, in my previous job we actively tested and built for it. I suppose if the limits are inappropriately set , or if this sort of testing isn’t wide spread, it could still be an issue.
4. As long as there’s a neutral line, i think any common mode should be rejected, in which case this should be fine?
its_ethan 34 seconds ago [-]
Not sure that I can speak to everything, but I did take a course specifically on space weather + it's impacts on Earth and have some context I can maybe share. For your first point, you are correct it is a national security concern. There are standards already in place that aim to address/mitigate potential disruptions from solar storms/ space weather, but the concern is/would be if these standards are sufficient for an extreme event like Carrington or this 1840s example.
And to segue into your later points, the reason it's unknown if the current standards would be sufficient is because these sort of events, and how they interact with a continent-sized electrical/ transmission systems (the grid), is a pretty complex problem. It's also one that we can't exactly test in a lab or controlled environment beforehand with a super high degree of confidence given the scale that the phenomenon takes place at (the whole planet). EMI testing that occurs for most tech products today isn't super focussed on the currents induced by a solar storm, which are low frequency/quasi-DC/much less predictable (the effects can vary geographically and in ways that "typical" EMI/EMC does not).
Some googling lead me to a NOAA doc that says GIC's "quasi-DC ... currents flow through transmission lines and enter/exit the power grid through grounded transformer neutrals" which to me reads that simply having a neutral line isn't sufficient, but I'm not an EE and could be misunderstanding what you're saying and what this doc is speaking to.
leetrout 10 minutes ago [-]
> If it were true, I expect it would be a national security concern, and quickly remedied
I dunno... things happen that expose these risks and lead times for replacement equipment can push out to 2-3 years.
> 1. If it were true, I expect it would be a national security concern, and quickly remedied
If only the world worked this way. Until something happens, a lot of potential problems remain potential problems rather than getting remedied. Especially when it'll be expensive to fix.
r2_pilot 12 minutes ago [-]
>1. If it were true, I expect it would be a national security concern, and quickly remedied
It was known in the early 2000s and they've been working on it for decades. Presumably things are better now.
b112 14 minutes ago [-]
Hydro Quebec was very strongly hit, primarily due to its long power line runs:
Is this really true? I’m suspicious for a few reasons:
1. If it were true, I expect it would be a national security concern, and quickly remedied
2. While there is a lot more dependence on electrical connections, there’s also many more sources of disturbance now. So I suspect some of the failure modes are tested by “normal” human activity
3. EMI is a known risk, in my previous job we actively tested and built for it. I suppose if the limits are inappropriately set , or if this sort of testing isn’t wide spread, it could still be an issue.
4. As long as there’s a neutral line, i think any common mode should be rejected, in which case this should be fine?
And to segue into your later points, the reason it's unknown if the current standards would be sufficient is because these sort of events, and how they interact with a continent-sized electrical/ transmission systems (the grid), is a pretty complex problem. It's also one that we can't exactly test in a lab or controlled environment beforehand with a super high degree of confidence given the scale that the phenomenon takes place at (the whole planet). EMI testing that occurs for most tech products today isn't super focussed on the currents induced by a solar storm, which are low frequency/quasi-DC/much less predictable (the effects can vary geographically and in ways that "typical" EMI/EMC does not).
Some googling lead me to a NOAA doc that says GIC's "quasi-DC ... currents flow through transmission lines and enter/exit the power grid through grounded transformer neutrals" which to me reads that simply having a neutral line isn't sufficient, but I'm not an EE and could be misunderstanding what you're saying and what this doc is speaking to.
I dunno... things happen that expose these risks and lead times for replacement equipment can push out to 2-3 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_County_substation_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2026/09/02/u-s-bulk-power-equipm...
If only the world worked this way. Until something happens, a lot of potential problems remain potential problems rather than getting remedied. Especially when it'll be expensive to fix.
It was known in the early 2000s and they've been working on it for decades. Presumably things are better now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1989_geomagnetic_storm
Supposedly, they've hardened things, lots of info on what they've done here:
https://news.hydroquebec.com/news/press-releases/all-quebec/...
I have zero idea of 1989 vs the event in 1840 though.