The plain truth is that nobody knows how much or how little damage would be done. The scope of the effect is so broad and diffuse it is impossible to know which specific devices or components of the infrastructure would fail and which would not. This is the same problem as speculating about the effect of an EMP, even as the impact of a solar CME is distinctly different than that of an EMP. (primarily that a CME induces direct current in long wires and an EMP is a pulse with a very sharp rise time and induces a voltage spike that does the damage.)
I suggest an experiment: an EMP over, oh, say Gaza or perhaps Mosul, maybe Tehran. Let’s measure the effects and repeat as necessary to accumulate the necessary data. OK, forget Mosul; ISIS is already hard at work moving them back to the 6th century, they don’t need the help.
Of the following three things, which is more likely to occur within our lifetime: 1) Global Warming catastrophe, 2) CME strike on mother erf, 3) Nuclear Winter?
If you didn’t say 3, you’re not paying attention.
Very good explanation. You are completely correct.
The thing about a CME is that we would have warning that it is coming. Power grid operators understand, for the most part, where they are vulnerable.
If an 1860 type event happened today - one sure-fire way to deal with it is to shut the grid down for a day, maybe two.
Then restart it over the next few days. It would be a huge pain in the butt, but the grid would not incur any damage from the event.
It’s the “not quite as bad” events that will cause the most damage - because operators may not do the right things to protect the grid.
We know how to completely protect it from a CME event (several ways, actually) - it just takes money