8 ms·

I know someone who is a senior meteorologist for FEMA, and this person takes part in some interdisciplinary disaster planning events based around specific scena

I know someone who is a senior meteorologist for FEMA, and this person takes part in some interdisciplinary disaster planning events based around specific scenarios. He told me that there actually is no FEMA plan for a very large solar storm (like the Carrington Event), because we'd just be screwed. In a massive grid-down scenario like that, they expect a 90% die-off in the first few months. This was two years ago that I had this conversation, and I'm not sure when the actual exercise he was referencing took place. My understanding is that there has been a lot done to prepare the grid in the past 5 years, so we may be in better shape today. I hope so.

Retric 10y ago
This guy was just messing with you. Worst case is something that 90% of people would not notice. The induced current across very long wires is relatively tiny compared to the power grid, and it has zero impact on fiber.
- late2part 10y ago
  The fiber isn't useful without the optoelectronics.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Electronics are generally well protected from the power grid due to lightning strikes. If it makes you feel better compared to lighting strikes which regularly hit power lines and are DC this is locally much less of an issue. Sure, if this happened tomorrow it would make the news, but other than some extremely local events where things failed it just the right way it's a non issue.
    - late2part 10y ago
      Maybe you're right. I've been doing this for some time, and I do admit there generally seems to be far more fiber cuts that equipment outages :-) Maybe that's because of redundancy, or the failures in equipment are less visible than the fiber reroutes. OTOH, every time I've tried to do 1 mile + wifi on a tower (e.g. 20 meter antenna tower) it's always been the lightning that killed the AP!
loteck 10y ago
You should think twice about repeating doomsday hearsay like this without citing a documented, credible source.
- jonstokes 10y ago
  I'm not going to cite a source because it was a personal friend in a private conversation, and it was off-the-record. I don't want to get anyone in trouble.
  - loteck 10y ago
    Then it's hearsay and worthless and you shouldn't repeat it, frankly. If you do, people should call you out since you're inciting FUD.
    - jonstokes 10y ago
      Feel free to ignore it. Seriously. I don't really care one way or the other. It's a nested comment in an HN thread, and it's actually presented by me as hearsay. (Whoever you are, I don't really need you to define hearsay for me.) It's not like I just reported this in the WSJ. I dropped into a forum where people have informal conversations about a variety of things, and this was my random, downvoted, "hey I heard this thing once" contribution. I've given about as much information as I care to, and people can interpret however they like.
      - kjs3 10y ago
        Then why don't you just shut up. You could have after "I'm not going to substantiate what I said", but the fact you keep replying is pretty indicative of how much you want people to take your unsubstantiated "contribution" seriously.
  - Aelinsaar 10y ago
    >I'm not going to cite a source Then don't make a claim.
ghaff 10y ago
And, yet, here is a Lloyd's study of the impact: http://www.lloyds.com/~/media/lloyds/reports/emerging%20risk%20reports/solar%20storm%20risk%20to%20the%20north%20american%20electric%20grid.pdf http://www.lloyds.com/~/media/lloyds/reports/emerging%20risk... They do say the worst case scenario would have a major impact--perhaps especially in the Northeast of the US--and affect about 10% of the US population. But there's nothing like "90% die-off" even if, as stated in the report, having "major implications for the insurance industry."
fweespeech 10y ago
http://news.berkeley.edu/2014/03/18/fierce-solar-magnetic-storm-barely-missed-earth-in-2012/ http://news.berkeley.edu/2014/03/18/fierce-solar-magnetic-st... > A study last year estimated that the cost of a solar storm like the Carrington Event could reach $2.6 trillion worldwide. A considerably smaller event on March 13, 1989, led to the collapse of Canada’s Hydro-Quebec power grid and a resulting loss of electricity to six million people for up to nine hours. Its not going to kill alot of people. It is going to knock out the power for a few hours.
- Alex3917 10y ago
  Not accurate. From the actual report you're citing: "The total U.S. population at risk of extended power outage from a Carrington-level storm is between 20-40 million, with durations of 16 days to 1-2 years. The duration of outages will depend largely on the availability of spare replacement transformers. If new transformers need to be ordered, the lead-time is likely to be a minimum of five months. The total economic cost for such a scenario is estimated at $0.6-2.6 trillion USD." And if you look at the appendix: "The economic costs of the outage scenarios are estimated by calculating the percentage of residential, commercial, and industrial customers without power by state and using the average amount of electricity consumed by each segment in each state per hour. The total amount of electricity "lost" for each sector in each state is then the product of these items." In other words, 0.6 - 2.6 trillion isn't the economic cost of the power outage, it's the amount of money the electric utilities would lose on sales during at extended downtime.
  - xenadu02 10y ago
    There's always an unstated premise: "assuming all else is equal". In a disaster scenario it won't be business as usual. In a true emergency scenario a transformer plant can be operated 24/7 with rotating crews. It wouldn't take 5 months to get new transformers.
    - Retric 10y ago
      Exactly transformers are really simple things, a bucket of mineral oil, cable, and a core can be assembled in a few hours. It's not going to last for 50 years like that, but needs must.
mturmon 10y ago
Here's a recent article in Science magazine about natural disasters, that covers solar storms: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/here-s-how-world-could-end-and-what-we-can-do-about-it http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/here-s-how-world-coul... In general, the author seems to believe that these storms are not likely to cause national-scale extreme hardships like the ones you mention. The experts admit being unsure, but nothing like 90% casualties seems probable. There are some much more problematic scenarios, such as the ever present rogue asteroid one, and the often overlooked super-volcano one. It seems Yellowstone is a likely trouble spot.

Retric 10y ago

This guy was just messing with you. Worst case is something that 90% of people would not notice. The induced current across very long wires is relatively tiny compared to the power grid, and it has zero impact on fiber.

late2part 10y ago
The fiber isn't useful without the optoelectronics.
- Retric 10y ago
  Electronics are generally well protected from the power grid due to lightning strikes. If it makes you feel better compared to lighting strikes which regularly hit power lines and are DC this is locally much less of an issue. Sure, if this happened tomorrow it would make the news, but other than some extremely local events where things failed it just the right way it's a non issue.
  - late2part 10y ago
    Maybe you're right. I've been doing this for some time, and I do admit there generally seems to be far more fiber cuts that equipment outages :-) Maybe that's because of redundancy, or the failures in equipment are less visible than the fiber reroutes. OTOH, every time I've tried to do 1 mile + wifi on a tower (e.g. 20 meter antenna tower) it's always been the lightning that killed the AP!

loteck 10y ago

You should think twice about repeating doomsday hearsay like this without citing a documented, credible source.

jonstokes 10y ago
I'm not going to cite a source because it was a personal friend in a private conversation, and it was off-the-record. I don't want to get anyone in trouble.
- loteck 10y ago
  Then it's hearsay and worthless and you shouldn't repeat it, frankly. If you do, people should call you out since you're inciting FUD.
  - jonstokes 10y ago
    Feel free to ignore it. Seriously. I don't really care one way or the other. It's a nested comment in an HN thread, and it's actually presented by me as hearsay. (Whoever you are, I don't really need you to define hearsay for me.) It's not like I just reported this in the WSJ. I dropped into a forum where people have informal conversations about a variety of things, and this was my random, downvoted, "hey I heard this thing once" contribution. I've given about as much information as I care to, and people can interpret however they like.
    - kjs3 10y ago
      Then why don't you just shut up. You could have after "I'm not going to substantiate what I said", but the fact you keep replying is pretty indicative of how much you want people to take your unsubstantiated "contribution" seriously.
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
  >I'm not going to cite a source Then don't make a claim.

ghaff 10y ago

And, yet, here is a Lloyd's study of the impact: http://www.lloyds.com/~/media/lloyds/reports/emerging%20risk%20reports/solar%20storm%20risk%20to%20the%20north%20american%20electric%20grid.pdf http://www.lloyds.com/~/media/lloyds/reports/emerging%20risk... They do say the worst case scenario would have a major impact--perhaps especially in the Northeast of the US--and affect about 10% of the US population. But there's nothing like "90% die-off" even if, as stated in the report, having "major implications for the insurance industry."

fweespeech 10y ago

http://news.berkeley.edu/2014/03/18/fierce-solar-magnetic-storm-barely-missed-earth-in-2012/ http://news.berkeley.edu/2014/03/18/fierce-solar-magnetic-st... > A study last year estimated that the cost of a solar storm like the Carrington Event could reach $2.6 trillion worldwide. A considerably smaller event on March 13, 1989, led to the collapse of Canada’s Hydro-Quebec power grid and a resulting loss of electricity to six million people for up to nine hours. Its not going to kill alot of people. It is going to knock out the power for a few hours.

Alex3917 10y ago
Not accurate. From the actual report you're citing: "The total U.S. population at risk of extended power outage from a Carrington-level storm is between 20-40 million, with durations of 16 days to 1-2 years. The duration of outages will depend largely on the availability of spare replacement transformers. If new transformers need to be ordered, the lead-time is likely to be a minimum of five months. The total economic cost for such a scenario is estimated at $0.6-2.6 trillion USD." And if you look at the appendix: "The economic costs of the outage scenarios are estimated by calculating the percentage of residential, commercial, and industrial customers without power by state and using the average amount of electricity consumed by each segment in each state per hour. The total amount of electricity "lost" for each sector in each state is then the product of these items." In other words, 0.6 - 2.6 trillion isn't the economic cost of the power outage, it's the amount of money the electric utilities would lose on sales during at extended downtime.
- xenadu02 10y ago
  There's always an unstated premise: "assuming all else is equal". In a disaster scenario it won't be business as usual. In a true emergency scenario a transformer plant can be operated 24/7 with rotating crews. It wouldn't take 5 months to get new transformers.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Exactly transformers are really simple things, a bucket of mineral oil, cable, and a core can be assembled in a few hours. It's not going to last for 50 years like that, but needs must.

mturmon 10y ago

Here's a recent article in Science magazine about natural disasters, that covers solar storms: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/here-s-how-world-could-end-and-what-we-can-do-about-it http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/here-s-how-world-coul... In general, the author seems to believe that these storms are not likely to cause national-scale extreme hardships like the ones you mention. The experts admit being unsure, but nothing like 90% casualties seems probable. There are some much more problematic scenarios, such as the ever present rogue asteroid one, and the often overlooked super-volcano one. It seems Yellowstone is a likely trouble spot.