As a background, I used to work on the FAA - WAAS[0] a system that provides more accurate GPS and more importantly provides realtime integrity reports of GPS for users. A big part of my work was studying ionospheric storms and how they affected GPS. We made the majority of analysis from collected data from the late 90s and onward, the sad truth is that we have no real idea of what a massive solar event would do to satellites and the earth.
Satellites in general have a very hard time discharging large amounts of current, because there simply is no ground and the possibility of a Carrington Event[1] in the modern age is simply frightening. An event of this size today could possibly knock out thousands of satellites at once -- including the entire GPS constellation.
The effects on earth could be very damaging too, what would happen we aren't quite certain. However, you could see arcs from power lines or any long distance wire as it would provide easy paths for electrons. This also could affect any computers much like an EMP blast. We could be looking at a large percentage of all electronics broken. So we might suddenly have large areas, with no power, no electronics, and no communication.
After spending lots of time learning about the science behind these storms, to me this is the stuff of nightmare fuel.
Power lines go bang due to induced current, because the distortion of the Earth's magnetic field due to the storm causes the two ends to be at different potentials, which the line shorts out. But satellites are tiny, so the potential difference between the two sides of the satellite is going to be very small.
The absolute potential of a satellite can be a problem because if the satellite is too strongly charged then it can react against the surrounding plasma causing damage to the surface. But that doesn't affect the electronics, which are shielded and inside. And it's not going to cause current flow to ground because, of course, there is no ground --- satellites are as shielded as they can get.
As far as I can found out, the biggest risk is simple radiation damage to the satellite components, but that has nothing to do with current flow...
According to this NASA article on the 2012 storm [1], the problem is that CMEs induce currents in the Earth's magnetosphere - the same phenomenon that causes the auroras.
> This also could affect any computers much like an EMP blast
I thought CMEs are distinctly different from EMP blasts in that CMEs don't produce a fast, high-voltage pulse [1]. Yes, computers plugged directly into the grid would risk being fried. But anything behind a circuit breaker should be fine.
> Satellites in general have a very hard time discharging large amounts of current
Um... don't you mean "charge" instead of "current"?
> We could be looking at a large percentage of all electronics broken. So we might suddenly have large areas, with no power, no electronics, and no communication.
As a HAM radio operator, this is why I want to build a transceiver that has no semiconductors in it. If it's not connected to a large antenna, or to the AC network, or to any long wires, there's no way anything coming in from space could fry it (that would not fry me too).
> Um... don't you mean "charge" instead of "current"?
"Current" is moving charged particles (usually electrons). In the moment that they're being shed, the electrons charging the satellite become a current.
Well, if you go into the physics of the whole thing, penetration depth, skin effect, absorbance, etc, you realize there's always a combination of factors that will screw up your silicon. Plus, if it's not in the bag when it hits, it gets fried. Plus, it should be more like a military-style box than a bag.
Tubes are just a heck of a lot harder to screw up, except mechanically.
The descriptions of effects of the 1859 solar storm on the telegraph system[0] are pretty crazy. It started fires, shocked operators, powered unplugged machines, etc. Can't imagine what that would be like with all of our modern machines.
They fail to mention all the very similar accidents that happened in those days regardless of space weather. We have safety systems in place today (fuses, breakers, grounded parts) to prevent accidents that were once the norm. They will also mitigate space weather effects. It would be bad, but not nearly as destructive.
> A world without power because of damaged transformers would become economically stagnant
Economic stagnation would probably be the least of our problems. The cascading issues from a world without power for an extended period of time are incredibly far reaching. It would most certainly be a form of chaos.
"One Second After" is often suggested reading about what those issues might look like. Like many books in the genre, it's interesting but the political leanings of the author quickly become apparent.
Personally I'd love to see a "World War Z" style novel about the impact of space weather.
If we're suggesting fiction that deals with the aftereffects, Alyssa Cole has a short series of short novels called Off the Grid that explore the situation. They're in the romance genre, so perhaps a bit different than the usual HN fiction. Of course the political leanings of the author influence these books, as well.
A CME wouldn't cause a world without power. It would cause parts of the world to lose their power grids and satellites. Generators would almost certainly be hooked up to critical infrastructure and cities in rich countries.
"A CME wouldn't cause a world without power. It would cause parts of the world to lose their power grids and satellites. Generators would almost certainly be hooked up to critical infrastructure and cities in rich countries."
This is true, of course, however I am pessimistic about the ability for manufacturers to resist cutesy network/cloud/status/monitoring functions in these devices.
I am sure that somewhere, right now, there is a diesel generator acting as backup for something critical that is plugged into ethernet and queries a license server every five minutes.
There might be massive issues for power distribution but not power generation as generation can be quickly taken off grid. Local power plants could then be brought back very quickly.
There could still be issues in specific areas dependent on long distance power. However, nuclear subs and aircraft carriers have been used in the past to provide power for critical infrastructure ~(40+MW a pop) and local power grids would not be impacted long term. Compared to say a war this would be a minor long term impact.
PS: The $613 billion estimate over 5 years is 0.15% of the ~390,000 billion world GDP over that same 5 years.
> I am pessimistic about the ability for manufacturers to resist cutesy network/cloud/status/monitoring functions in these devices
Small electronics would probably not be affected by a coronal mass ejection [1]. CMEs wreak havoc with the power grid by "inducing a DC-like current" through transformers, thereby melting them [2]. Most diesel generators don't contain large transformers hooked up to miles and miles of conductive cabling.
Generators could maybe keep critical infrastructure up but long term brownouts/blackouts in areas accustomed to easy electricity would be a disaster, especially if it was during the winter.
Obviously the scale of a CME is what matters - one city is a minor disaster but a whole region or country could alter the course of a nation.
> It would cause parts of the world to lose their power grids
The questions I haven't seen answered are: how much of our capacity to manufacture power generation and transmission equipment requires a functioning power grid? I wonder if we(read FEMA) have a plan to divert the finite resources remaining after such an event to repairing the power grid?
Saying it would cause a crisis is unlikely, at least long-term, since anything to would cause spending to recover and the cause of the "crisis" would be known and accounted for.
To put this in perspective, America alone lost tens of trillions of dollars in from the peak to the trough of the whole 2008 crisis:
Am I right in thinking with advanced warning this could be mitigated by simply shutting down the power grids for a few hours? That would be a big deal, but clearly not as bad as taking it out.
I think the massive electromagnetic flux caused by the CME interacting with Earth's magnetosphere induces current even in powered-down systems. I believe it's necessary to cut lines and perhaps even disconnect individual transformers from the grid.
The major distribution sub stations already have remote controlled disconnects that isolate them from the power grid it's a basic requirement for maintenance.
Interestingly the UK national grid's current policy is the opposite of this - i.e. to open up as many circuits as possible to provide multiple paths for charge to dissipate through.
One of my college friends who works for PG&E said "The faster you turn off the grid the longer it will take to turn it on."
He had some great stories about contingency plans that go into how they would restart the grid post 9.0 quake in SF or LA. Such a quake is largely expected to bring down most, if not all, of California's grid.
The strike slip nature of the San Andreas Fault zone in California precludes really big earthquakes. USGS thinks a 8.2 or 8.3 is about as big as they could get. The biggest historical California earthquakes have reached 7.9 in magnitude. (http://www.conservation.ca.gov/index/Earthquakes/Pages/qh_ea...)
How fast grids can be fixed depends on what breaks.
If large power transformers (LPTs) get fried, the lead time for manufacturing replacements can exceed 20 months [1]. They're so expensive that spares are not commonly bought or built.
As well, a Carrington-scale CME event could wreck enough grid infrastructure to require a black start [2] of unprecedented scale.
Our energy infrastructure has never experienced a Carrington CME. I think it could easily take a year or more to get back to the continent-wide coordinated grid we now have.
CMEs happening at a regular rate is actually a good thing - they keep the magnetosphere "puffed-up" in a sense. A lack of CMEs causes the extra buffer to fade away, making earth more vulnerable to smaller CMEs, increasing the likeliness of geomagnetic storms. Geomagnetic storms lead to all kinds of crazy stuff - more extreme weather, increased radiation exposure to flight passengers, increased anxiety/suicide rates and heart problems have been correlated with geomagnetic disturbance.
The predicted upcoming grand-minimum (which we are long overdue for) is going to be a doozy.
(IANAS - check out http://www.suspicious0bservers.org for a lot of cool solar/spaceweather info. Highly recommend the daily 5-minute spaceweather news posts on their youtube channel)
It won't trigger an economic crisis. What it would trigger is an economic boom. Capital owners will all have to pony up to repair the infrastructure they own or depend on. You might get some of your possessions damaged, but after that making quick buck will become easier for a duration.
If you are breaking the windows of a very rich man who has most of the windows in your community due to his enormous house, and your economy is largely window-installation based...
I find it interesting that Bloomberg gets all hyped out about the consequences of Outer Space events that may eventually happen and we do not have any way to prevent, but cheerfully ignores the consequences, - and the very tangible costs, - of Climate Change here on Earth.
"We can’t dodge, prevent or suppress solar flares. But we can increase funding for early-warning systems such as the Space Weather Prediction Center in Boulder, Colorado."
Why do you say they ignore climate change? Lots of articles, and it seems like the editorial stance is clearly that climate change is real and caused by humans: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/topics/climate-change
> that may eventually happen and we do not have any way to prevent
We can't prevent a solar flare. We can prevent a lot of the damage by powering down, decoupling and/or shielding vulnerable equipment.
Coronal mass ejections exhibit "transit times from the Sun out to the mean radius of Earth's orbit of about 13 hours to 86 days (extremes), with about 3.5 days as the average" [1]. That's enough time to react.
You table shows figures that sum up to 70-71% fossil fuel in 2008, and 66-67% in 2015. The major change is the shift from coal to gas but the total did not decrease as significantly.
The oil price plummet, and the natural gas boom, both made it very hard economically to not use fossil fuels. I'm not making excuses, just providing an explanation.
Nuclear is too dangerous, complex, and expensive to compete with solar wind and hydro. Rating the Obama administration time frame is complex because of the impacts of fracking on production, markets, and usage. Presidents actually have far less influence on energy use than industry and consumers.
Satellites in general have a very hard time discharging large amounts of current, because there simply is no ground and the possibility of a Carrington Event[1] in the modern age is simply frightening. An event of this size today could possibly knock out thousands of satellites at once -- including the entire GPS constellation.
The effects on earth could be very damaging too, what would happen we aren't quite certain. However, you could see arcs from power lines or any long distance wire as it would provide easy paths for electrons. This also could affect any computers much like an EMP blast. We could be looking at a large percentage of all electronics broken. So we might suddenly have large areas, with no power, no electronics, and no communication.
After spending lots of time learning about the science behind these storms, to me this is the stuff of nightmare fuel.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Area_Augmentation_System
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859