Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday September 14 2017, @08:15AM   Printer-friendly
from the living-off-the-grid dept.

On March 13th, 1989 a surge of energy from the sun, from a "coronal mass ejection", had a startling impact on Canada. Within 92 seconds, the resulting geomagnetic storm took down Quebec's electricity grid for nine hours. It could have been worse. On July 23rd 2012 particles from a much larger solar ejection blew across the orbital path of Earth, missing it by days. Had it hit America, the resulting geomagnetic storm would have destroyed perhaps a quarter of high-voltage transformers, according to Storm Analysis Consultants in Duluth, Minnesota. Future geomagnetic storms are inevitable.

And that is not the only threat to the grid. A transformer-wrecking electromagnetic pulse (EMP) would be produced by a nuclear bomb, designed to maximise its yield of gamma rays, if detonated high up, be it tethered to a big cluster of weather balloons or carried on a satellite or missile.

[...] After the surge, telecom switches and internet routers are dead. Air-traffic control is down. Within a day, some shoppers in supermarkets turn to looting (many, unable to use credit and debit cards, cannot pay even if they wanted to). After two days, market shelves are bare. On the third day, backup diesel generators begin to sputter out. Though fuel cannot be pumped, siphoning from vehicles, authorised by martial law, keeps most prisons, police stations and hospitals running for another week.

[...] Yet not much is being done. Barack Obama ordered EMP protection for White House systems, but FERC, the utilities regulator, has not required EMP-proofing. Nor has the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pushed for a solution or even included EMP in official planning scenarios. (The Pentagon should handle that, DHS officials say; the Pentagon notes that civilian infrastructure is the DHS's responsibility.) As for exactly what safeguards are or are not needed, the utilities themselves are best equipped to decide, says Brandon Wales, the DHS's head of infrastructure analysis.

But the utilities' industry group, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), argues that, because EMP is a matter of national security, it is the government's job. NERC may anyway be in no rush. It took a decade to devise a vegetation-management plan after, in 2003, an Ohio power line sagged into branches and cut power to 50m north-easterners at a cost of roughly $6bn. NERC has repeatedly and successfully lobbied Congress to prevent legislation that would require EMP-proofing. That is something America, and the world, could one day regret.

Is a widespread blackout the end of the world?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by ledow on Thursday September 14 2017, @08:48AM (31 children)

    by ledow (5567) on Thursday September 14 2017, @08:48AM (#567699) Homepage

    How do you EMP-proof a nationwide electrical grid?

    I think it would cost more than the grid itself. A power line on a branch cost you $6bn, how much do you think revamping every piece of equipment that deals with provider grid-power, around the entire country, to protect against a nuclear-level EMP attack would cost?

    The reason EMP is so devastating is that though it's a small local effect, you would need to guard against it EVERYWHERE. You'd pay more to defend against it than your enemy could ever cause in disruption.

    You EMP-proof critical systems, sure, but in this case not every single power-station, substation, etc. is a critical system. The grid as a whole might be but that's far too expensive to EMP, and couldn't be taken down by just one EMP attack (inverse square law) that didn't just destroy the entire country anyway.

    To be honest, I think the attitude is: If you attacked someone like that, it's war. And all the instruments of war to retaliate would be protected. Your local shop having power is then the least of your worries for a LONG time after that.

    If it occurs by natural disaster... sure... that's bad. And there's almost nothing you can do to defend against that scale of incident anyway. And you would hope that others would come to help if it came to it.

    The utilities are right here: They can't afford to defend against it and it's not their problem. The military are right here: It's not their problem, and their systems are probably EMP-proof where necessary. The article, though, is very wrong in thinking that you should just spend billions in case it happens, so that you don't have to go a few days without power. We spent longer without power in the 1970's voluntarily.

    All the air-traffic control nonsense? That can run on manual for a long time, because that's what happens when it goes down today, whether that's Windows Update or an EMP attack. A bit of disruption, some emergency radio kit, and you're back in business.

    Internet routers? Private commercial gear. You gonna EMP every datacentre it passes through when everybody's home kit is totalled anyway?
    Telecoms? Mostly based on those same Internet routers nowadays.
    Looting, fuel pumps, etc... just what happens when there's a hurricane, let alone a nationwide-EMP attack. It rarely turns into anything serious in any country with an operational military.

    Let's spend hundreds of billions to give ourselves a national tin-foil hat so we can get on the net in case someone detonates a nuclear bomb above the US. That's not really a sensible priority.

    And EMP from natural events are not limited to any one country, are pretty much undefendable for the same reasons, fleeting, and low-level.

    The president being able to order a counter-strike in the case of an EMP - as the line about EMP protection for the White House implies - is a very different case to "nobody should be without power for a day anywhere in the country if it happens".

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by ledow on Thursday September 14 2017, @08:56AM (4 children)

    by ledow (5567) on Thursday September 14 2017, @08:56AM (#567700) Homepage

    P.S. I just thought: Air traffic control: I'd be more worried about the planes themselves. Pretty sure they'd come down hard and fast in the case of an EMP attack and then taking off again won't really be an issue even if you did land properly. Pretty sure it'd just be an immediate grounding of all aircraft until they've been checked.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday September 14 2017, @12:29PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 14 2017, @12:29PM (#567753) Journal

      I'd be more worried about the planes themselves

      They'll be as fine as the ability of their pilots to navigate without radio links - the wavelength of geomagnetic storms are much too large to affect their electronics. But radio transmission will be noisy as hell and their electronics (even if functional) won't be able to "see" the GPS system.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday September 14 2017, @12:46PM (1 child)

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 14 2017, @12:46PM (#567758)

      Pretty sure they'd come down hard and fast in the case of an EMP attack

      Best way to protect hardware from EMP is to have short conductors (shorter than 1 KM) and/or be really well shielded (like inside nearly a tin can) and/or be really well grounded such that the protection gear can do its thing and none of the voltages get high.

      There's a type of disaster / prepper pr0n where all the stuff most likely to fail keeps working like AM radio stations and sometimes telephones, but the stuff most likely to survive like trains, planes and automobiles all stop magic wand style. Oh another good one is pacemakers stopping LOL. Oh they'll stop alright when the battery runs down, but till then...

      Can you think of a better possible way to shield a sensitive electronic ckt than to put it in a "small" tin can up in the air where there's miles of air between it and the sparkable ground and for weight reasons everything inside is being replaced by fiber at a feverish pace?

      The real killer is going to be looter bands roving around so nobody going to go to work which means more looter bands if they want to eat which means ... etc etc.

      • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday September 15 2017, @02:22AM

        by Reziac (2489) on Friday September 15 2017, @02:22AM (#568233) Homepage

        Eat the looter bands. Problem solved!!

        --
        And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14 2017, @07:58PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14 2017, @07:58PM (#568052)

      I'd be more worried about the planes themselves. Pretty sure they'd come down hard and fast in the case of an EMP attack

      Planes get hit my lightning all the time. That one hell of a EM pulse from a 20,000,000+V spark, yet, they fly. If an EM pulse kills planes, radiation would probably vaporize it anyway, so the problem is moot.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Thursday September 14 2017, @10:14AM (6 children)

    by Gaaark (41) on Thursday September 14 2017, @10:14AM (#567716) Journal

    That terrorist Sun has WMD!: We need to take it out NOW!

    You either with us or again' us.
    ;)

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14 2017, @12:02PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14 2017, @12:02PM (#567747)

      The Sun itself is a big nuke. A hydrogen one, no less.

      • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday September 14 2017, @12:31PM (4 children)

        by LoRdTAW (3755) on Thursday September 14 2017, @12:31PM (#567755) Journal

        Does it also have oil? If so, we could liberate it and bring democracy to the good people of the sun.

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday September 14 2017, @05:36PM (3 children)

          by bob_super (1357) on Thursday September 14 2017, @05:36PM (#567958)

          Harvesting energy from the sun is discouraged, as it could cause it to collapse, as would our donors' profits.

          • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday September 15 2017, @03:21AM (2 children)

            by Gaaark (41) on Friday September 15 2017, @03:21AM (#568252) Journal

            Thas it, Bobby-joeJobby-boe, he's again' us... Get out yer broom and yer anti-global warming lube and we'll show him "What happened".

            Hyuk!

            --
            --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
            • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday September 15 2017, @06:58PM (1 child)

              by bob_super (1357) on Friday September 15 2017, @06:58PM (#568624)

              Some days, I regret the absence of a "What?" mod.

              • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday September 15 2017, @09:30PM

                by Gaaark (41) on Friday September 15 2017, @09:30PM (#568713) Journal

                Sorry, just continuing with my
                "You either with us or again' us."
                theme from above.

                It all kinda got lost.

                Like me

                Where am i? (Looking for the 'vodka' mod)

                --
                --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14 2017, @10:23AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14 2017, @10:23AM (#567720)

    I think it would cost more than the grid itself. A power line on a branch cost you $6bn, how much do you think revamping every piece of equipment that deals with provider grid-power, around the entire country, to protect against a nuclear-level EMP attack would cost?

    The reason EMP is so devastating is that though it's a small local effect, you would need to guard against it EVERYWHERE. You'd pay more to defend against it than your enemy could ever cause in disruption.

    That's true only if you are measuring the costs of repairing/replacing parts of the grid. The economic disruption to the areas affected by an EMP would dwarf the infrastructure costs.

  • (Score: 1) by Demena on Thursday September 14 2017, @11:34AM (11 children)

    by Demena (5637) on Thursday September 14 2017, @11:34AM (#567738)

    All the air-traffic control nonsense? That can run on manual for a long time, because that's what happens when it goes down today, whether that's Windows Update or an EMP attack. A bit of disruption, some emergency radio kit, and you're back in business.

    Nope, nope, nope. No radio, no electricity... You are talking a very local EMP burst. Yes, air traffic control worries would not be a worry but only because there would be nothing flying. (lol. DO you really expect someone to land a 747 from a signaller using paddles in the runway?)

    Internet routers? Private commercial gear. You gonna EMP every datacentre it passes through when everybody's home kit is totalled anyway?
    Telecoms? Mostly based on those same Internet routers nowadays.
    Looting, fuel pumps, etc... just what happens when there's a hurricane, let alone a nationwide-EMP attack. It rarely turns into anything serious in any country with an operational military.

    Nope, nope, nope. There'll not be a functioning or operational police force let alone military.

    Let's spend hundreds of billions to give ourselves a national tin-foil hat so we can get on the net in case someone detonates a nuclear bomb above the US. That's not really a sensible priority.
    And EMP from natural events are not limited to any one country, are pretty much undefendable for the same reasons, fleeting, and low-level.

    I am not suggesting a solution but you don't realise the magnitude of the problem. People will have a problem even telling what the time is? How many still have mechanical watches? Endless amounts on money wiped out. How many companies could survive just losing the receivables ledger? Have a very good and adequately shielded bug out bag. You will need it.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14 2017, @12:04PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14 2017, @12:04PM (#567748)

      (lol. DO you really expect someone to land a 747 from a signaller using paddles in the runway?)

      So I get there were ILS infrastructure on Hudson river?

      • (Score: 1) by Demena on Thursday September 14 2017, @12:09PM (4 children)

        by Demena (5637) on Thursday September 14 2017, @12:09PM (#567749)

        Stop being silly. Would you get on a plane if it were going to crash land in the Hudson as a regular practice? Could you afford the fare if an aeroplane were a use only once item?

        • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday September 14 2017, @04:16PM (3 children)

          by maxwell demon (1608) on Thursday September 14 2017, @04:16PM (#567876) Journal

          A total continent-wide loss of electricity due to geomagnetic storm hopefully won't be a regular event.

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
          • (Score: 1) by Demena on Thursday September 14 2017, @11:36PM (2 children)

            by Demena (5637) on Thursday September 14 2017, @11:36PM (#568135)

            The point is not the loss but the ability to recover. You don't think stuff will work again, just like that, after the event do you? After the event where are you going to get your next watt from when all the generators are burnt out and you have lost the capability to build more. How do you rebuild with no manufacturing capacity remaining?

            • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday September 15 2017, @06:40AM (1 child)

              by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday September 15 2017, @06:40AM (#568328) Journal

              My post was about the claim that the planes already in the air would not be able to land.

              --
              The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
              • (Score: 2) by Demena on Friday September 15 2017, @07:35AM

                by Demena (5637) on Friday September 15 2017, @07:35AM (#568335)

                Was not my claim. I claim there wouldn't be a functioning system left. I am not sure of the percentage of fly-by-wire aircraft but those would just be totalled. I am pretty sure almost any aircraft except some Chinese and Russian military aircraft would drop out of the sky. Aircraft without much electronics would still work.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by mechanicjay on Thursday September 14 2017, @04:37PM (4 children)

      by mechanicjay (7) <reversethis-{gro ... a} {yajcinahcem}> on Thursday September 14 2017, @04:37PM (#567908) Homepage Journal

      DO you really expect someone to land a 747 from a signaller using paddles in the runway?

      Yup...more or less: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider [wikipedia.org]

      --
      My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
      • (Score: 1) by Demena on Thursday September 14 2017, @11:42PM (3 children)

        by Demena (5637) on Thursday September 14 2017, @11:42PM (#568137)

        No comparison. It still had its electronics I assume. Isn't a 767 a fly-by-wire aircraft? Without power it would be dead in the air.

        • (Score: 2) by mechanicjay on Thursday September 21 2017, @05:39PM (2 children)

          by mechanicjay (7) <reversethis-{gro ... a} {yajcinahcem}> on Thursday September 21 2017, @05:39PM (#571280) Homepage Journal
          If you'd bother to actually read the article I'd linked, it explains that a 767 uses hydraulics to manipulate the flight control surfaces. At loss of engine power, all instruments went dead and the ram-air turbine automatically deployed to provide hydraulic pressure for flight control.
          --
          My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
          • (Score: 2) by Demena on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:25AM (1 child)

            by Demena (5637) on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:25AM (#572899)

            Point of this? It is irrelevant to what I said. If ypu consider that n economic model then you are just crazy. You are waffling irrelevantly to yourself only.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday September 14 2017, @01:35PM (2 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 14 2017, @01:35PM (#567780) Journal

    How do you EMP-proof a nationwide electrical grid?

    Install a "fuse"/circuit breaker every 20km or so of the grid.
    Use underground cables.
    Make every consumer generate its own power (PV, LPG fuel cells).
    Use optical fiber communication.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14 2017, @04:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14 2017, @04:48PM (#567922)

    The article, though, is very wrong in thinking that you should just spend billions in case it happens, so that you don't have to go a few days without power.

    The question is not if it will happen but when. Yes, eventually, we will have another Carrington Event. [wikipedia.org] It is inevitable. The real question is what we should do to prepare for that eventuality. While rewiring the entire national grid is just not practical, there are steps that can be taken to mitigate the damage. Deciding what are our priorities in protecting the power grid is for policy makers to decide. Better to have that discussion now, rather than wait until after disaster and chaos to make hasty decisions on the fly.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14 2017, @05:07PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14 2017, @05:07PM (#567940)

    The reason EMP is so devastating is that though it's a small local effect, you would need to guard against it EVERYWHERE.

    An EMP blast generated by a nuke is not a small local effect by any measure of the word. Tests have knocked out power for thousands of square miles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse#Soviet_Test_184 [wikipedia.org]

    Your local shop having power is then the least of your worries for a LONG time after that.

    It matters to me a lot more than whether one country beats another.

    Anyway, war these days is more economic than military. It would take years to recover from economic collapse caused by a strong EMP.

    And EMP from natural events are not limited to any one country, are pretty much undefendable for the same reasons, fleeting, and low-level.

    They aren't "low-level". It's just a matter of time until we get unlucky and get hit with a big solar flare, and I really don't care if it's limited to one country or not. The internet is global, and the internet is a core component of the modern economy, and the internet is probably going to be in disarray for months if there's a big solar flare or an EMP attack.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14 2017, @09:25PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14 2017, @09:25PM (#568093)

      An EMP blast generated by a nuke is not a small local effect by any measure of the word. Tests have knocked out power for thousands of square miles.

      Zomg, thousands of square miles? Like, the size of a fairly normal-sized city?

      It seems like it would be far more effective to just hit the city with the nuke.