> 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?
Here are some of the risks that are currently unfeasible to mitigate:
G5:
> Widespread voltage control problems and protective system problems can occur, some grid systems may experience complete collapse or blackouts. Transformers may experience damage.
S5:
> Satellites may be rendered useless, memory impacts can cause loss of control, may cause serious noise in image data, star-trackers may be unable to locate sources; permanent damage to solar panels possible.
---
One extremely unlucky solar event can set us back for years, and there is absolutely nothing we can do to prepare for it long term. Our best predictive models give us a couple of days notice.
In a sense, we're more prepared for an asteroid collision (not by much) than a solar event.
There's never been a recorded S5 solar radiation storm. The highest level recorded was 43000 or S4 back in 1991. Another S4 storm occurred recently back in January 19, 2026 with a recorded flux of 36976.133.
Your comment sounds dismissive. Did you intend it that way?
The table you cite goes back to the 1960s. The weather in the article occurs about 100 years before that. Not recording an S5 event doesn’t mean humanity has not experienced one.
Whether it’s worth preparing for is another issue entirely.
pinkmuffinere · · focus · HN ↗
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?
gaigalas · · focus · HN ↗
Here are some of the risks that are currently unfeasible to mitigate:
G5:
> Widespread voltage control problems and protective system problems can occur, some grid systems may experience complete collapse or blackouts. Transformers may experience damage.
S5:
> Satellites may be rendered useless, memory impacts can cause loss of control, may cause serious noise in image data, star-trackers may be unable to locate sources; permanent damage to solar panels possible.
---
One extremely unlucky solar event can set us back for years, and there is absolutely nothing we can do to prepare for it long term. Our best predictive models give us a couple of days notice.
In a sense, we're more prepared for an asteroid collision (not by much) than a solar event.
drmpeg · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/top-solar-radiation-storms.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/top-solar...
fn-mote · · focus · HN ↗
The table you cite goes back to the 1960s. The weather in the article occurs about 100 years before that. Not recording an S5 event doesn’t mean humanity has not experienced one.
Whether it’s worth preparing for is another issue entirely.