5 ms·

I got few questions: Do we have any kind of recovery plan from this? As I understand almost all electronics would be deep fried, including machinery used in fa

I got few questions: Do we have any kind of recovery plan from this? As I understand almost all electronics would be deep fried, including machinery used in factories that make electronics we need to replace. Would impact be localized to part of the planet facing sun? What kind of shielding would be required on most sensitive infrastructure to protect it? How deep data center would need to be to avoid data on hard drives being wiped?

deletes 13y ago
I would say you are a victim of the overly dramatic article, designed to attract clicks.
mannykannot 13y ago
The risk is not primarily to electronics, but to the power distribution system. CMEs induce large, very low frequency currents in transmission lines, which can destroy the large transformers connected to them. There is no large reservoir of replacement transformers, and they take some time to build, so in the event of a widespread event, they will not be quickly replaced. IEEE Spectrum had a detailed discussion of the problem and steps to mitigate it: http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/a-perfect-storm-of-planetary-proportions/0 http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/a-perfect-s...
BrandonMarc 13y ago
While hardening important infrastructure is a worthy goal, I'd say it makes just as much sense to cause people to be less dependent on said infrastructure in various ways. Of course, where the former is more of an engineering problem, I'd say the other is far more difficult.
- chc 13y ago
  The latter also has a lot more negative side effects and is probably more expensive.
xpda 13y ago
1. It depends on who "we" are. For almost everybody, it would be a non-event but for the hype in the media. Electronics would not be deep fried. Some damage would occur to satellites, but few would be permanently affected. 2. "Impact" would be from the sun. The magnetic effect can wrap around the earth to some extent. 3. Most "infrastructure" would require no shielding. The atmosphere does a good job, except for certain circumstances. 4. No hard drives would come close to being wiped by the CME, even it was directed at earth. This CME was rated about 80 nanoTesla. The "Carrington Event" of 1859 was about 50 percent stronger. This CME is notable primarily because of its speed, not its size or destructive potential (except when used for selling newspapers).
- fhars 13y ago
  A non-event, but for the minor annoyance of: Impacts would be felt on interdependent infrastructures, with, for example, potable water distribution affected within several hours; perishable foods and medications lost in about 12-24 hours; and immediate or eventual loss of heating/air conditioning, sewage disposal, phone service, transportation, fuel resupply, and so on. Kappenman stated that the effects on these interdependent infrastructures could persist for multiple years, with a potential for significant societal impacts and with economic costs that could be measurable in the several-trillion-dollars-per-year range. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12507&page=77 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12507&page=77

deletes 13y ago

I would say you are a victim of the overly dramatic article, designed to attract clicks.

mannykannot 13y ago

The risk is not primarily to electronics, but to the power distribution system. CMEs induce large, very low frequency currents in transmission lines, which can destroy the large transformers connected to them. There is no large reservoir of replacement transformers, and they take some time to build, so in the event of a widespread event, they will not be quickly replaced. IEEE Spectrum had a detailed discussion of the problem and steps to mitigate it: http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/a-perfect-storm-of-planetary-proportions/0 http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/a-perfect-s...

BrandonMarc 13y ago

While hardening important infrastructure is a worthy goal, I'd say it makes just as much sense to cause people to be less dependent on said infrastructure in various ways. Of course, where the former is more of an engineering problem, I'd say the other is far more difficult.

chc 13y ago
The latter also has a lot more negative side effects and is probably more expensive.

xpda 13y ago

1. It depends on who "we" are. For almost everybody, it would be a non-event but for the hype in the media. Electronics would not be deep fried. Some damage would occur to satellites, but few would be permanently affected. 2. "Impact" would be from the sun. The magnetic effect can wrap around the earth to some extent. 3. Most "infrastructure" would require no shielding. The atmosphere does a good job, except for certain circumstances. 4. No hard drives would come close to being wiped by the CME, even it was directed at earth. This CME was rated about 80 nanoTesla. The "Carrington Event" of 1859 was about 50 percent stronger. This CME is notable primarily because of its speed, not its size or destructive potential (except when used for selling newspapers).

fhars 13y ago
A non-event, but for the minor annoyance of: Impacts would be felt on interdependent infrastructures, with, for example, potable water distribution affected within several hours; perishable foods and medications lost in about 12-24 hours; and immediate or eventual loss of heating/air conditioning, sewage disposal, phone service, transportation, fuel resupply, and so on. Kappenman stated that the effects on these interdependent infrastructures could persist for multiple years, with a potential for significant societal impacts and with economic costs that could be measurable in the several-trillion-dollars-per-year range. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12507&page=77 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12507&page=77