Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Data Center Protects Against Solar Storm and Nuclear EMPs

Posted by samzenpus on from the playing-it-safe dept.

dcblogs writes "In Boyers, Pa., a recently opened 2,000-sq.-ft. data center has been purpose-built to protect against an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), either generated by a solar storm or a nuclear event. The company that built the facility isn't disclosing exactly how the data center was constructed or what materials were used. But broadly, it did say that the structure has an inner skin and an outer skin that use a combination of thicknesses and metals to provide EMP protection. Betting against an EMP event is a gamble. In 1859, the so-called Carrington solar storm lit the night skies and disrupted the only telegraph communications. William Murtagh, program coordinator at U.S. Space Weather Prediction Center, said there is ongoing concern that the earth may see an solar storm that could impact electronics on the ground. "We're concerned that can happen," A 2012 solar storm, that missed the earth, "was very powerful, and some have suggested it would have been on par with a Carrington-level event." One researcher put the odds of a catastrophic solar storm by 2020 as one in eight.

8 of 59 comments (clear)

  1. Solar storm EMP vs nuclear weapons by magarity · · Score: 2

    OK, solar storm I can understand protecting against. But nuclear weapons EMP? Better to use the data center as a bunker in that case and never mind the data.

    1. Re:Solar storm EMP vs nuclear weapons by Obscene_CNN · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A nuclear EMP can be produced by any nuclear detonation. Although an enemy might choose a high detonation to try to knock out just electronics the vast majority of nuclear warheads are going to be used for their blast effect. Thus a bunker would be useful

      --
      I don't want to do a sig now
    2. Re:Solar storm EMP vs nuclear weapons by EvilSS · · Score: 3, Informative

      While any nuclear detonation creates an EMP, it's really only high-altitude detonations that you need to worry about for EMP effects. Their interaction with the magnetosphere can amplify and spread their EMP effects over a very large area . By contrast the effective range for a normal ground or airburst nuclear EMP is less than its thermal and overpressure damage radii. When you are pincushioned by debris and on fire, you tend to re-evaluate your level of concern about your electronics.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  2. Poor comparison... by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A "Carrington-level" event nowadays would most likely be much less disruptive, as back then all the early radio and spark gap stuff was well under 50 MHz, which is where almost all of the natural noise winds up in the spectrum. Ever notice, for example you can hear your shaver motor on an AM radio but not an FM one. This is not due to AM vs. FM, (well, it is a little) but mostly due to the fact that AM is about 1 MHz and FM is about 100 MHz, well above the "static line" around 50 MHz.

    It would take a much stronger signal than back then to cause the same level of disruption. Not saying that can't happen, but modern radio communications are quite a bit more robust than they were back over 100 years ago.

    --
    -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    1. Re:Poor comparison... by jdschulteis · · Score: 4, Informative

      A "Carrington-level" event nowadays would most likely be much less disruptive, as back then all the early radio and spark gap stuff was well under 50 MHz, which is where almost all of the natural noise winds up in the spectrum. Ever notice, for example you can hear your shaver motor on an AM radio but not an FM one. This is not due to AM vs. FM, (well, it is a little) but mostly due to the fact that AM is about 1 MHz and FM is about 100 MHz, well above the "static line" around 50 MHz.

      It would take a much stronger signal than back then to cause the same level of disruption. Not saying that can't happen, but modern radio communications are quite a bit more robust than they were back over 100 years ago.

      The concern is not so much about the disruption of radio communications, but the power grid. Our society might not survive a massive, long-term (months or even years) blackout (a huge number of transformers might be destroyed all at once by the induced EMF).

  3. Re:2000 square feet? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

    Can I convert my basement into a data center and get it on slashdot too?

    Putting your kids out on the streets wouldn't be good for society.

  4. Re:Clueless by rogueippacket · · Score: 2

    Interesting slide deck from PJM - what's more interesting is the reference to a piece of damaged equipment for which the manufacturer quoted a two-year timeline for replacement (during normal business operations!), but a suitable spare had been found elsewhere and put in place within 6 months.
    From what I have read on the topic, this is the largest concern - spare parts simply do not exist, and if enough small pieces are damaged at once, they may never be replaced in a reasonable amount of time. Entire communities and cities at greatly diminished power/no power for months and years at a time, and every country on the globe competing with each other for decades to bring everything back.
    Who knows, I'm not an expert. Can you tell us how prevalent these "transformers with grounded center taps connected to long transmission lines" are, and what the damage might look like?

  5. Re:Protection from Nuclear EMPs by disambiguated · · Score: 2

    If only there were some way to simulate physical systems like that. Where will they find the computing power? Plus the software probably costs a fortune.