Slashdot Mirror


EMP-Shielded Power Grids Under Development

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from MarketWatch: "A one-megaton nuclear bomb detonated 250 miles over Kansas could cripple many modern electronic devices and systems in the continental US and take out the power grid for a long time. ... A solar storm similar to the one that occurred in 1859, which shorted out telegraph wires in the United States and Europe, could wreak havoc on electrical systems. Each of the above scenarios can create a powerful electromagnetic pulse that overloads electronic devices and systems. IAN staff and Frostburg State University physics and engineering professor Hilkat Soysal are teaming — through a $165,000 project recently approved by the Maryland Industrial Partnerships (MIPS) program — to create renewable energy-powered, electromagnetic pulse (EMP)-protected microgrids that could provide electricity for critical infrastructure facilities in the event of a disaster." Also available are an EMP threat assessment (PDF) written for the US Congress and an estimate of economic impact (PDF).

111 comments

  1. Good! by Gerafix · · Score: 0

    About time, George Clooney is thinking of using an EMP device to rob a bank...

    1. Re:Good! by Ghworg · · Score: 1

      It would be a boon for the genetically engineered soldiers who recently escaped from Manticore though.

  2. Exactly by iamdrscience · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why settle for tin foil hats when you can have tin foil powerplants, houses, cars, etc. It just makes sense.

    1. Re:Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But tin foil is so last season...

    2. Re:Exactly by adrianwn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A one-megaton nuclear bomb detonated 250 miles over Kansas could cripple many modern electronic devices and systems in the continental US and take out the power grid for a long time.

      I don't mean to troll, but you don't need a nuclear bomb to take out the power grid [1,3]. Instead, the money should be invested in renewing the outdated grid in the USA [2,3].

      [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_North_America_blackout

      [2] http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/26/business/grid.php

      [3] http://www.pubrecord.org/nationworld/239-5-years-after-blackout-power-grid-still-in-dire-straits.html

    3. Re:Exactly by mpe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't mean to troll, but you don't need a nuclear bomb to take out the power grid [1,3].

      There arn't too many people who have both 1MT nuclear weapons and the ability to get them to 250 miles above Kansas either. Also AFAIK none of those with such an ability are likely to only use one weapon. This is something which is unlikely to happen, but should it happen the US is likely to have bigger problems than a non functional power grid.

      Instead, the money should be invested in renewing the outdated grid in the USA [2,3].

      That actually makes sense. Especially if at the same time you also add generating capacity where it has not previously been. Regardless of if this is of a new form, e.g. wind/solar/etc. or coal/methane/nuclear/etc.

  3. Omega Man by p51d007 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sometimes I wish we could throw away technology, and go back to the old days...less stress. Just as long as they don't take my cell phone, wi-fi, internet, DVD's LOL.

    1. Re:Omega Man by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      *We* can. Those of *us* who choose to do it join communities such as the Amish. It's only up to you to choose that lifestyle. And technology doesn't cause stress, having a job does. That's why I don't have one, ahem I mean, I'm self employed.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:Omega Man by sortius_nod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And technology doesn't cause stress, we do.

      Fixed that for you.

    3. Re:Omega Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually with some people it works, I've seen it, get it?!LOL!!!11!11!!

    4. Re:Omega Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia stress causes you!

    5. Re:Omega Man by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Good point.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    6. Re:Omega Man by philspear · · Score: 1

      And stress doesn't cause technology, we do.

      I may not have "fixed" that for you, but it's true when you think about it...

  4. And of course the critical power lines would.... by 3seas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... be supporting the governments and their military for which an EMP would most likely come from.

    Just more terrorism from those we pay taxes to.

  5. Shielded grid? by transporter_ii · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If the grid was shielded, could it be used for broadband Internet?

    Transporter_ii

    --
    Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    1. Re:Shielded grid? by amorsen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even unshielded, it can be. It's just expensive to protect your modem from 10kV and up, and the bandwidth of long aluminium cables isn't very impressive.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    2. Re:Shielded grid? by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Probably would help considered there would probably be less noise on the line. That would be great if it could be used to replace entirely the land telephone network.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    3. Re:Shielded grid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have been experiments with using aluminum cables with a glass fiber core. Plenty of bandwidth and since glass fiber doesn't conduct, it's easy to separate the data from the kV's at the end point.
      The 10 kV will also stop most people from damaging the glass core.

    4. Re:Shielded grid? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I'm not really sure where you heard that, but over short distances fiber is definitely conductive. Enough so that lightning can enter a building through the fiber optic line.

      Over the longer distances yes that's probably true, but it's largely pointless since you can't use a continuous stretch for long distances without additional hardware in the middle.

    5. Re:Shielded grid? by transporter_ii · · Score: 1

      Even unshielded, it can be.

      Yes, it can be...but because it is unshielded, it creates RF Interference with radios (mostly HAM bands). It is my understanding that if they weren't causing interference, Broadband Over Power lines would be just about ready to roll.

      Don't think a lot of money is being put into this?

      -=-=-=-=

      http://broadbandoverpowerlines.blogspot.com/2006/05/google-gs-sensustxu-ge-earthlink-put.html

      Google, GS, SENSUS,TXU, GE, EarthLink put $230M in Current Communications ~ 10 Mbps Symmetrical speed Broadband over Power Lines Internet service !!!

      -=-=-=-

      No telling what they could do without the interference issues.

      Transporter_ii

      --
      Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    6. Re:Shielded grid? by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

      10kv is nothing near what a lightning strike will do. You might get a spike via fibre on a strike, but it will end up as a melted mess before the strike fully discharges - by which time it will have "found" a more efficient route to ground.

      To say equate fibre conducting a gigavolt or two is the same as conducting 10kv is just silly. Do we ban wood in homes? You know, trees get hit by lightning all the time, and, well, we've got 240v (or 110v if you're in the US) going all through the walls.

      Actually, I'm scared now... I might have to go build a massive rubber home now.

    7. Re:Shielded grid? by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Yes, it can be...but because it is unshielded, it creates RF Interference with radios (mostly HAM bands). It is my understanding that if they weren't causing interference, Broadband Over Power lines would be just about ready to roll.

      They aren't going to shield the last mile to you. Sorry. Anyway, if they have to dig up the last mile they might as well put in fiber at the same time.

      Broadband over power lines is obsolete before it got started.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  6. underground by ionix5891 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    will burying the cables under ground help? sorry if its a dumb question

    1. Re:underground by wulfmans · · Score: 1

      The losses incurred because of inductive / capacitive losses burying the power lines under ground would be tremendous. It is not a viable option in the near future. Now maybe if they can do cheap superconducting underground lines we may have a chance.

    2. Re:underground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not unless they are very very deep. Cables are usually more conductive than the ground. The EMP will continue deep into the ground, and will be picked up by cables like a several miles long antenna.

    3. Re:underground by mysidia · · Score: 1

      So put the cables in non-conductive conduit and suspend them in the middle of the tube, so that (other than mounting apparatus) they are not in contact with anything but air.

    4. Re:underground by Tanktalus · · Score: 2, Informative

      You kind of have it backwards. You want to put the cables in a conductive conduit. The air layer would be non-conductive already, though there are simpler ways to achieve that (e.g., rubber or plastic).

    5. Re:underground by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The materials making up the walls of the conduit itself should be conductive, but the interior of the conduit should be non-conductive.

      Actually, air is a fairly good insulator, but at high voltages, it can still become conductive.

      So it may be best to fill the conduit with a less-conductive inert gas, pressurize and isolate segments of the conduit, to discourage things like water dripping in, if the conduit is ever breached somewhere, or to make incursion less likely and minimize the length of conduit effected.

    6. Re:underground by PPH · · Score: 1

      Conductive conduit (i.e. steel) is expensive! So what you do is to make cables surrounded with a conductive, grounded shield ...

      ...which is exactly how medium and high voltage underground cabled produced today are constructed.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    7. Re:underground by mpe · · Score: 1

      The losses incurred because of inductive / capacitive losses burying the power lines under ground would be tremendous. It is not a viable option in the near future. Now maybe if they can do cheap superconducting underground lines we may have a chance.

      It also costs a lot more to install underground cables. Even if you had superconducting cable it comes down to the difference between digging a trench vs posts or concrete foundations every so often.

    8. Re:underground by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      No extra losses if you bury high voltage DC power-lines. Since we got the tech to do DC now, and it should work better for solar anyway. ( the alternating current causes a ringing current between any capacitance and inductance, DC only during load changes would you have to pay the cost of inductance, not constantly like AC.

    9. Re:underground by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Conductive conduit (i.e. steel) is expensive! So what you do is to make cables surrounded with a conductive, grounded shield ...

      Well, conduit in general is not cheap. You can line your PVC conduit with a foil shield covering the wall and it becomes conductive.

      The added expense of rigid conduit has benefits like being able to bring additional cables through it, for example fiber, which could be leased out at a profit to other users.

      Moreover, you have additional protection against the wire being broken or someone electrocuting themselves while digging.

      A good-sized orange PVC tube is a lot easier for a digger to see than a pair of thin black wires, before their shovel hits it.

      The risk of animals chewing into the wire is also a good cause for some rigid metal shielding.

      Also.. steel rusts when wet. Since the stuff is so expensive to put in; the choice of material should be materials that take a long time to degrade, so the cost isn't re-incurred in the form of replacing conduit every 30 years.

  7. Pork by bsane · · Score: 3, Funny

    through a $165,000 project recently approved by the Maryland Industrial Partnerships (MIPS) program

    Sounds like pork to me... I hope McCaine shuts this down!

    1. Re:Pork by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Sounds like pork to me... I hope McCaine shuts this down!

      There's pork and then there's National Security Pork.
      All the Candidates are proposing to attack the first.
      I'm not sure any of them have even discussed cutting the flow of money for the 2nd.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  8. Still inventing war-tech, guys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Soon nobody will want to waste an expensive bomb on your broke asses anyway.

    1. Re:Still inventing war-tech, guys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol yeah the EGO on these americans

    2. Re:Still inventing war-tech, guys? by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's nothing quite like doing research in the hopes of spending billions to defend oneself against the absurdly unlikely. A nuke detonated in LOE?!? A natural phenomenon the likes of which has been recorded exactly ONCE in the last 150 years?!

      If only there was some kind of Adamsian Perspective Ray we could shoot these people with.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    3. Re:Still inventing war-tech, guys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So you REALLY didn't mean "assets".

    4. Re:Still inventing war-tech, guys? by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      Well, we have plenty to waste on you.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    5. Re:Still inventing war-tech, guys? by mpe · · Score: 1

      There's nothing quite like doing research in the hopes of spending billions to defend oneself against the absurdly unlikely. A nuke detonated in LOE?!? A natural phenomenon the likes of which has been recorded exactly ONCE in the last 150 years?!

      Especially when there are far more sensible things to research as well as a power grid which could do with some major maintainence.

    6. Re:Still inventing war-tech, guys? by besalope · · Score: 1

      Wait, with the recent market crashes he could be referring to the broke ass Americans.

    7. Re:Still inventing war-tech, guys? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      But as TFS said, a solar flare (like the one in 1859) could do the same thing.

      You can't be use diplomacy against nature.

    8. Re:Still inventing war-tech, guys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty of governments worldwide don't use diplomacy against ANYTHING.

  9. good investment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is great news ... as Russia, the middle east and Asia align their nuclear capabilities ... we're investing a whopping $160k on this technology. In case you worried you can probably bet that wall street will be shielded first.

  10. Some /. pages load slowly by hcdejong · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Anyone else having problems? Content from genweb.ostg.org (or .com?) takes forever, holding up page loading.

  11. $165000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    erm isn't the price somewhat high for technology which already exists? , like a faraday cage?

  12. boom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So if someone wants to screw up the US, and they have one atomic bomb to do so, doesn't defending against an EMP attack just make it more likely they'll go the traditional route and nuke a big city.

  13. IAN? by definate · · Score: 3, Funny

    Am I the only one who read "IAN staff" as "I Am Not staff" and then thought I am not staff? That doesn't make sense. Fucking slashdot summary!

    Ohhhhh... wait a minute... I.A.N... fucking slashdot abbreviations!

    --
    This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:IAN? by B-a-Z.nl · · Score: 1

      I.A.N... fucking slashdot abbreviations!

      ... Thank god.

  14. Re:Stupid scaremongering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your car has electronic parts too, dipshit.

  15. Re:Stupid scaremongering by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

    Yes, disabling a power plant in Kansas would make my gasoline powered car fail to start.

    Yes, disabling a power plant in Kansas would make your gasoline powered, computer controlled, car fail to start.
    If you happen to live close enough to the blast.

  16. How about solar flares? by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    solar flares need to be shielded from as well.

    1. Re:How about solar flares? by Dersaidin · · Score: 1

      "EMP" includes solar flares.

    2. Re:How about solar flares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Solar flares cause problems because they induce an extermely low frequency charge on a transmission line. This low frequency is practically a DC voltage which can saturate the core of transformer thus causing a blackout. Coupling the line through a large capacitor bank filters out this DC component thus negating much of the effects of a solar flare.

    3. Re:How about solar flares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like solar flares coming out of a monkey's butt

  17. Re:Stupid scaremongering by hedwards · · Score: 1

    Umm, nice trolling. Yes it would disable cars in Kansas, but the vast majority of people are not located in Kansas and it wouldn't really take that much time to get unaffected cars from elsewhere.

  18. Re:Stupid scaremongering by galadran · · Score: 1

    Yes, disabling a power plant in Kansas would make my gasoline powered car fail to start.

    ..um don't most/all cars have electronic emission systems...? *eyeroll*

  19. Nice by mysidia · · Score: 3, Interesting

    that could provide electricity for critical infrastructure facilities in the event of a disaster."

    "Critical infrastructure" had better include the Wal-marts, fire, police, gas stations...

    And most importantly: the internet.

    The potential effects of a massive EMP or power outage are so bad, that the traditional notion of "critical infrastructure" may not be enough.

    I.E. If businesses are down (no power) for months, then you have a situation where people can't purchase essential supplies, AND since a large EMP would effect a large area, noone nearby can spare them.

    1. Re:Nice by rickwood · · Score: 1

      I hate to rain too much on your parade but, if my sleep deprived memory serves me correctly, an EMP would render permanently inoperable any device within the effect area controlled by a semiconductor. This obviously includes computers and routing equipment, but also most cash registers, motor vehicles, kitchen appliances, traffic lights, programmable controllers, etc. Not to mention the approximately 5,000 airliners in the air during peak times.

      In addition, communication equipment and other types of receivers, e.g. RADAR, are especially vulnerable to EMP and would also likely be destroyed. Furthermore, any electrical equipment connected even tangentially to a sufficiently long conductor, e.g. network cabling, electrical cabling, piping, fencing, etc., would receive a power surge that could potentially destroy any such equipment.

      Long story short, if "they" manage to put a 10 kT air burst 300 miles above Chester, Nebraska, even if all critical Internet junctions were EMP hardened, the Internet would for all intents and purposes be gone until Asia or Europe could send us new equipment.

      I can safely predict this would be the least of our worries.

  20. Re:Stupid scaremongering by AudioInfecktion · · Score: 4, Informative

    What do they teach kids in schools these days. Let me explain. The scenario is the detonation of a 1 megaton nuclear device at 250 miles. That's in space, btw. It would not directly kill a single person. When that happens the EMP field would actually cover the US and a good chunk of Canada, and parts of Mexico. Wait, he's gonna say that I'm full of crap.... proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_altitude_nuclear_explosion Look at the effects while you're there. And if you say that it can't happen.... You'll see that it already has been done.

  21. Re:Stupid scaremongering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EMP 250 miles over Kansas means that many electrical devices in the entire US would be destroyed, and your fucking useless car would either (1) be among them or (2) not have any gas to run on since the refineries would also be non-operational.

  22. Wow, $165k. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That'll pay a staff of 2 or 3 for a year. Hope they didn't actually plan on buying any equipment...

  23. Re:Stupid scaremongering by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

    As a person who has to deal with Kansas drivers every day, I have to say disabling every car in Kansas might not be a bad thing.

  24. Umm by confused+one · · Score: 1

    create renewable energy-powered, electromagnetic pulse (EMP)-protected microgrids that could provide electricity for critical infrastructure facilities in the event of a disaster

    Ummm. Might they be referring to shielded backup generators? Can I have a $160,000 grant now too?

  25. Re:Stupid scaremongering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the Wikipedia page on EMP (which quotes a Federation of American Scientists article):

    "The pulse can easily span continent-sized areas, and this radiation can affect systems on land, sea, and air. The first recorded EMP incident accompanied a high-altitude nuclear test over the South Pacific and resulted in power system failures as far away as Hawaii. A large device detonated at 400â"500 km (250 to 312 miles) over Kansas would affect all of the continental U.S. The signal from such an event extends to the visual horizon as seen from the burst point."

    The test mentioned is the Starfish 1.4 megaton high altitude test. That link has many more details.

    EMP affects all sorts of electrical devices. Car computers would likely be more seriously affected than vintage, non-computer cars unless they have been EMP shielded as most military equipment is. Most regular cars have no such protection.

  26. Buzz-word compliant by mi · · Score: 1

    a $165,000 project recently approved by the Maryland Industrial Partnerships (MIPS) program -- to create renewable energy-powered, electromagnetic pulse (EMP)-protected microgrids

    No part of the objective seems to require the solution to be renewable energy-powered. It wouldn't be unconscionable to power the thing by burning caribou in order to preserve the nation's power grid, and communications...

    But somebody had money earmarked to "renewable energy" and somebody else knew, how to craft a proposal.

    Your taxes hard at work — at getting wasted.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Buzz-word compliant by khallow · · Score: 1

      A couple of things. First, caribou would be a renewable energy source. Second, there is some reason to the excuse. A number of renewable energy sources don't require any sort of fuel distribution network. A solar panel just needs sunlight (even cloudy skys would generate some power) and a windfarm needs wind.

    2. Re:Buzz-word compliant by mi · · Score: 0

      First, caribou would be a renewable energy source.

      That's cool. I'll use that to defend a new Alaska drilling project as "using renewable energy".

      But allow me to rephrase my point, lest it may be lost in the debate on whether caribou are renewable (and at what rate). How about: It wouldn't be unconscionable to power the thing by waterboarding caribou in order to preserve the nation's power grid and communications?..

      A number of renewable energy sources don't require any sort of fuel distribution network.

      Well, if the result of their work ends up using a renewable energy source for this reason, that's fine with me. What I object to is their ruling out all other energy sources a priori.

      A solar panel just needs sunlight (even cloudy skys would generate some power) and a windfarm needs wind.

      Neither is likely to survive a nuclear bomb, however... The energy source needs to be compact and well-protected. Whether it is renewable is (or ought to be) irrelevant — the system is not supposed to work forever — only for a short time after the disaster.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Buzz-word compliant by mpe · · Score: 1

      The energy source needs to be compact and well-protected. Whether it is renewable is (or ought to be) irrelevant -- the system is not supposed to work forever -- only for a short time after the disaster.

      I have some ideas, but Rudolf Diesel appears to have had them first :)

    4. Re:Buzz-word compliant by mpe · · Score: 1

      A number of renewable energy sources don't require any sort of fuel distribution network. A solar panel just needs sunlight (even cloudy skys would generate some power) and a windfarm needs wind.

      You are still likely to need a power grid, because the best place for generating power may not be where you want to use that power.

    5. Re:Buzz-word compliant by khallow · · Score: 1

      And? A power grid doesn't need a fuel distribution network either.

    6. Re:Buzz-word compliant by khallow · · Score: 1

      That's cool. I'll use that to defend a new Alaska drilling project as "using renewable energy".

      Please do. And post the video. I think there's a lot of different between a source that is renewable on the order of a generation of caribou (geothermal is something like this as well) and renewable on the order of millions of years.

      Well, if the result of their work ends up using a renewable energy source for this reason, that's fine with me. What I object to is their ruling out all other energy sources a priori.

      That's reasonable. It does sound a bit feelgoody. I'm just pointing out that there are practical reasons for considering "renewable" energy sources.

      Neither is likely to survive a nuclear bomb, however... The energy source needs to be compact and well-protected. Whether it is renewable is (or ought to be) irrelevant -- the system is not supposed to work forever -- only for a short time after the disaster.

      I don't get what you think is going on here. We're not speaking of a surface nuclear blast. Yes, solar cells due to their large size will intercept a signficant amount of EMP, but you can protect them (eg, overlay a grid of copper tracks over it to make a Faraday cage). And the generator in a wind power system is no less compact than other generators of its power generation capability. It's just using wind to power the generator instead of coal or diesel. Finally, how long is a "short" time? Renewables have the advantage that they can run indefinitely.

  27. Practical uses by Attila · · Score: 1

    Yes, protecting electronics from solar storms and nuclear explosions is impressive and all, but what I really need is something to stop the brrp-brrp-brrp-brrp from my BlackBerry.

    --
    Dear Will, the plums were poisoned. -- Cheese Club
  28. Ok, let's all calm down. by neBelcnU · · Score: 1

    We're all panicking because some streetlights went out in Hawaii after one test. (Oh look it up!)

    I agree, EMP=bad, & solar flares could do darn near the same thing.

    BUT let's try to remember: a megaton class weapon exploded at the edge of the atmosphere is the work of a grown-up nu-ku-ler power. The Axis of Eagerness is not likely to generate this threat anytime soon. By that time, we'll have other solutions and problems.

    Let's just try NOT to piss off France, 'k?

  29. Exactly Backward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The goal should not be to SHIELD stuff from an EMP, the goal should be to ABSORB the EMP and convert it into useful power! (Also, we get shielding automatically as a side-effect.)

  30. Nice, but... by orkybash · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... I don't think MIPS means Maryland Industrial Partnerships to the slashdot crowd.

  31. EMP from nuclear warheads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    During the cold war US created resistant military hardware to withstand soviet nuclear attack of x megajoules of EMP. This was extremely costly and soviets simply replied on cheap by designing EMP-boosted nukes that would fry any hardened system.

    Soviets used vacuum tubes in many mission critical military systems. Not just because their tech was way behind but vacuum tubes are much more EMP resistant than microelectrics.

  32. Personally... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ...I welcome our overload overlords.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  33. Re:Stupid scaremongering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Katrina.

    Great example of the times involved to fix massive infrastructure problems....

  34. Re:Barak Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Takes one to spot one.

  35. Stupid Priorities by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    That money spent "upgrading" the electrical grid needs to be spent right now on better failovers in conventional incidents. More redundancy and distribution around bottlenecks, more intelligence and messaging. We just watched the 2003 Northeast Blackout, and others are all too common. If the grid upgrades are to be focused on individual cities, like with this EMP shielding project, they should first protect cities from blackouts that happen inside them during heat waves.

    If there's money for EMP shielding, that should get spent first on the higher, more immediate risks. Which investment will also make the grid a better infrastructure for further investments in all kinds of upgrades from our catastrophic 20th Century systems. Otherwise, there might not be a usable grid to nuke if that unlikely catastrophe ever comes to pass.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  36. How about Hurricane Resistant Power Grids? by jefftp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hurricane Ike knocked out power across Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio. We need to divert this money away from worrying about preventing a power grid outage due to an extremely unlikely nuclear strike and towards finding ways to keep natural, regularly occuring forces from bringing down power for 6 million people across the center of the US.

    1. Re:How about Hurricane Resistant Power Grids? by khallow · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Recovery after hurricanes is very quick. A nuclear strike on the other hand is only "unlikely" till it happens. The more vulnerable the US is to that, the worse it'll be for US citizens when it happens. And given the far greater damage possible than with a hurricane, I don't see the preparation for a nuclear strike that unreasonable.

    2. Re:How about Hurricane Resistant Power Grids? by Ma8thew · · Score: 1

      Have you tried burying the cables?

  37. Re:Stupid scaremongering by WCguru42 · · Score: 1

    Yes, disabling a power plant in Kansas would make my gasoline powered car fail to start.

    Yes, disabling a power plant in Kansas would make your gasoline powered, computer controlled, car fail to start. If you happen to live close enough to the blast.

    No, disabling a power plant in Kansas would not make your gasoline powered car fail to start. The EMP blast itself would cause all the electronic parts to keep the car from starting. It's important to use cause and effect and not correlation and effect.

    --
    "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
  38. Renewables + critical infrastructure = bad idea by Tweenk · · Score: 1

    (...) renewable energy-powered, electromagnetic pulse (EMP)-protected microgrids that could provide electricity for critical infrastructure facilities (...)

    Critical infrastructure facilities powered by renewable energy? So you'll be protected from extremely rare solar storms and high-altitude nuclear explosions but not from weather? That doesn't sound very clever to me, unless we're talking about hydro power. It seems that they thrown in "renewable energy powered" to be buzzword compliant. On top of that, if the goal is reliability, it's generally better not to go with bleeding edge technology.

    --
    Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
  39. Don't need a nuke to make an EMP by Khyber · · Score: 3, Informative

    There are many other ways to form EMPs. The problem is making them powerful enough. A shorted out magnetotron in a microwave generates enough EM to screw up any nearby electronics (blew out my microwave, killed my computer, TV, router, and stereo. Everything else in other rooms were fine, just the kitchen and living room were affected, and they're on separate circuits.)

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  40. Duh, wrong by LM741N · · Score: 1

    Most new cabling, even high voltage up to a point is underground, ie no EMP. The EMP pulses are so short anyway (like ns) that they aren't likely to propagate very far on overhead wires either, as the energy is just radiated back out into space or turned into heat down the line a bit.

    I would worry more about unshielded smaller scale electronics like server farms, consumer electronics, wireless communications of all types including public service. Anything that has an antenna that receives in the ns range will likely be fried.

    However, those courageous hams who are still using vacuum tube equipment in their hobby will be unaffected. Ham radio will save the day again.

  41. EMP threat is way exaggerated by George_Ou · · Score: 2, Informative

    EMP threat is way exaggerated
    http://www.alternet.org/story/25738/

    A 1.4 megaton thermonuclear weapon detonated 250 miles above Johnston Island in the Pacific affected street lamps, circuit breakers, cars and radio stations in Hawaiian, 800 miles to the north. Starfish Prime was a thermonuclear device with a yield over a hundred times that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Minimal damage 800 miles away. 1% of street lights and some fused ignitions in cars.

    1. Re:EMP threat is way exaggerated by gb506 · · Score: 1

      The area affected by a 250mi high 1+ MT EMP burst isn't necessarily circular or evenly represented on a map, certain points on the compass are affected more due to the curvature of the earths magnetic field. The reason why Hawaii did not experience significant issues is probably due to the fact that Johnston Atoll is South and West of Hawaii. If Johnston were North of Hawaii things would probably have been much different. My feeling is that we should find a way to harden our core electrical infrastructure against EMP, but we should implement the updates over the normal course of updating infrastructure, and only if its not a $200b endeavor. It'd be different if the ONLY way we'd be vulnerable was the result of a bad actor launching a high alt nuke, but that's not the case. The sun can cause largescale EMP damage, and at the local level, entire cities or regions could easily lose power for extended periods due to a conventional, non-nuclear emp weapon being used against critical electrical infrastructure.

    2. Re:EMP threat is way exaggerated by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      The Starfish Prime test was conducted in 1962, back before "street lamps, circuit breakers, cars and radio stations" were all packed full of semiconductor devices.

      Older electromechanical or vacuum tube based systems were far more robust against EMP than modern VLSI electronics would be.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    3. Re:EMP threat is way exaggerated by George_Ou · · Score: 1

      The thing about EMPs is that you need to answer this question. Would a terrorist use a thermal nuclear bomb to murder 20 million people in New York City, or would they use it to blow out 10,000 street lamps and maybe 10,000 car ignitions? If a terrorist was that stupid, I'd say PLEASE EMP US.

    4. Re:EMP threat is way exaggerated by George_Ou · · Score: 1

      Given the choice between losing a few cars and lamps over 20 million people in New York or some other major city, I say take the cars and electronics. I really hope terrorists or any other enemy are that stupid to use a thermal nuclear device as an EMP bomb.

    5. Re:EMP threat is way exaggerated by gb506 · · Score: 1

      If a terrorist org had a 1MT nuke, they'd probably have a better chance of killing 20m people using the emp option. Positioned properly, say, over Pittsburgh, the emp would certainly take out nearly everything electronic from Indiana to the Atlantic that isn't hardened. A lot of the big power grid hardware is made overseas and/or requires a long manufacturing lead time. If they attacked in November, you'd have a lot more than 20m either freezing or starving to death (or both) within a month or two. A 1MT nuke detonated in NY City? No way you'd see 20m dead.

    6. Re:EMP threat is way exaggerated by George_Ou · · Score: 1

      "If a terrorist org had a 1MT nuke, they'd probably have a better chance of killing 20m people using the emp option"

      Please, please, PLEASE let the terrorists be this stupid. PLEASE waste that nuke on an EMP, please. I guess you've never heard of a low tech option called a blanket. Some of us growing up were too poor to use the heater.

    7. Re:EMP threat is way exaggerated by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      I would tend to agree, but a worst-case EMP event over the US wouldn't exactly be a victimless event. We have become so dependent on technology that in many cases it is literally a matter of life and death. Hospital life support systems, control/cooling systems at nuke plants or chemical plants, aircraft in the air at the time of the blast, emergency communications and response vehicles, etc.

      Such an event would cause a substantial loss of life almost immediately, with residual losses ongoing for quite a while afterwards as the society breaks down...

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    8. Re:EMP threat is way exaggerated by George_Ou · · Score: 1

      EMP by no means would be victimless. The difference in casualties however is probably 1000-fold higher if that 1.4 megaton explosive went off at the optimum height above a major city. This is why I hope terrorists are so stupid that they would "waste" their nuclear devices like this. It's not that I hope any attack will happen, but I'm not going to put them on the same scale like so many silly geeks that value their computers before human lives. You read the other guy that replied to me who said that he would rather see a blast over a city than an EMP and you have to wonder what kind of values these people have.

      Lastly, I still don't even think the EMP will be nearly as bad as you make it out to be. It won't be nearly as bad as the annual hurricanes we get which are the real threats that we need to be dealing with.

  42. DIY Power Generation. by Therefore+I+am · · Score: 1

    We simply do not have the technology to guarantee protecting power distribution grids against EMP attack. The very best we can do is to encourage solar power generation for each home, and demand higher standards of impulse protection in all consumer equipment. One large EMP today would take us back to the horse and buggy era.

    1. Re:DIY Power Generation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or at least learning how a point breaker based distributor, vacuum feedback systems, and carburator work together. Maybe knowing the theory behind diesel or glowplug engines wouldn't hurt either. If all electronics go kaput, the trick is finding working things from older than 1980. (Pre fuel injection and electronic engine management. Yeah, they typically suck compared to modern electronic control systems in terms of reliability/efficiency - but if it's all you had.) In the shorter term, bicycles should work plenty fine.

      I doubt we'd go back all the way to horse and buggy. But rather a hodge-podge of retrofitted 1960's tech until a fresh rollout of working modern electronics could be made available.

  43. Not Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A good old fashion car should be immune to an EMP, as should a house. Books and vinyl should also be immune, and fortunately you can crank a record by hand. Holograms and photographs should be cool too.

    It's all the data and conductors that need to be protected or forgotten. Sooner would be better than later especially with all the apes looking towards space.

  44. Re:And of course the critical power lines would... by philspear · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just more terrorism from those we pay taxes to.

    It's a trick! He's from the USSR, just trying to get us to stop paying our taxes, THEN the commies will win!

  45. IKE was preventable by woolio · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hurricane Ike knocked out power across Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio. We need to divert this money away from worrying about preventing a power grid outage due to an extremely unlikely nuclear strike and towards finding ways to keep natural, regularly occuring forces from bringing down power for 6 million people across the center of the US

    The outages caused by Hurricane Ike WERE PREVENTABLE!

    In Houston, there are trees completely growing around power poles. The news doesn't talk about this, but regular trimming/maintenance WAS NOT DONE. It is no wonder the branches snapped the lines.

    Look at it this way: Natural Gas sevice was not interrupted. Water was only interrupted for 1-2 days due to issues in the pumping station. Why was electricity out for 2 weeks? Because all other utilities have enough sense to BURY their lines. Can you imagine what would have happened if water pipes were run on poles 20 feet off the ground?

    Had Houston and other areas buried electrical lines, we wouldn't have been in this mess.

  46. Re:Stupid scaremongering by philspear · · Score: 1

    It wouldn't make much difference. A car that doesn't work and a car driven by your average Kansan both move at about the same speed.

  47. Re:Stupid scaremongering by philspear · · Score: 1

    What do they teach kids in schools these days.

    Obviously not enough about punctuation or weapons of mass destruction.

  48. Renewable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, so it'll be protected from an EMP. But what if they stop your renewable resource?

  49. Re:Stupid scaremongering by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    *whoosh*

    To all the dumb asses who modded me down: please read the article before moderating. Same to all the ACs who replied with "your car is electronic" - no duh. But the article is about an EMP protected power grid, so it has nothing to do with my car, which is neither in Kansas, nor connected to the power grid.

    I was making fun of the stupid journalism, and anyone actually read the article noticed that.

    The article, once you get into it, is about some grant awards to universities for studying a second power grid that would be EMP protected and designed for emergency situations. But the author wasn't content with that, so they made-up an irrelevant example about cars everyone failing, just to scare the reader.

    Thanks to everyone who tried to clarify about the power of EMP devices and the scale of the damage and such. Too bad the author of the article didn't cite any of that relevant information.