This article is full of wild claims and inaccuracies. Let's go over a few of them:
Astronomers are predicting that a massive solar storm, much bigger in potential than the one that caused spectacular light shows on Earth earlier this month, is to strike our planet in 2012 with a force of 100 million hydrogen bombs.The very first paragraph contains two major mistakes. First, astronomers aren't "predicting" such an event - they acknowledge it is possible. There's a huge difference between those two positions.
Second, saying that it will happen in 2012 in particular is a complete guess. Actually given the way Solar Cycle 24 is going, the peak in the cycle likely won't be until 2014 at the earliest. (By the way I've also read that the 2012 date from the Mayan calendar isn't correct, it actually ends or restarts in the 24th century.)
Several US media outlets have reported that NASA was warning the massive flare this month was just a precursor to a massive solar storm building that had the potential to wipe out the entire planet's power grid.No solar storm will ever "wipe out the planet's power grid" unless it's of a totally unprecedented nature. The power grids near the equator will receive little in the way of a disturbance. It is true that a major solar storm might have substantial effect on the US power grid and solid state devices, but surge protectors and UPS units are a workable defense. It would be bad if the large power transformers at power stations are destroyed, as I understand there is a multi-year lead time to get more. All that said, there is less reason to fear such a storm from Cycle 24 than from most cycles. More on that below.
"The general consensus among general astronomers (and certainly solar astronomers) is that this coming Solar maximum (2012 but possibly later into 2013) will be the most violent in 100 years," News.com.au quoted astronomy lecturer and columnist Dave Reneke as saying.Here's my pick for the worst inaccuracy in the piece. Note that this quote didn't come from an actual astronomer, especially of the "solar" variety. Many and I'd guess the majority of solar astronomers now expect Solar Cycle 24 to be weak. In fact, here is the official May 8, 2009 Cycle 24 prediction from NOAA/NASA:
May 8, 2009 -- Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Update The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has reached a consensus decision on the prediction of the next solar cycle (Cycle 24). First, the panel has agreed that solar minimum occurred in December, 2008. This still qualifies as a prediction since the smoothed sunspot number is only valid through September, 2008. The panel has decided that the next solar cycle will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the predicted date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now expected to occur in May, 2013. Note, this is a consensus opinion, not a unanimous decision. A supermajority of the panel did agree to this prediction.So, in contrast to the highly alarmist article, the actual prediction is "below average in intensity", and the maximum is expected in "May, 2013" - not 2012 at all.
I believe the unfolding of Cycle 24 since May 2009 indicates an even weaker cycle than NOAA is predicting, which means the maximum will slip at least into 2014. The weaker a solar cycle is, the longer it is.
I've posted over the last few years regarding the modern practice of counting "specks" as sunspots which would not have been counted historically, meaning the NOAA/NASA sunspot numbers are inflated compared with older solar cycles. I recently ran across a site which attempts to track sunspots using the older standard, and the person that runs it is noting some quite unusual activity as part of Cycle 24. He feels we are in fact in a Grand Minimum similar to the Dalton or Maunder minima.
In particular, he posted a very interesting article just today: There is Something Wrong with Solar Cycle 24.
Here's his chart of his count versus Solar Cycle 5, another very weak and long cycle during the Dalton Minimum: 
In fact, Cycle 24 is looking weaker than Cycle 5 so far! Like the Maunder Minimum, the Dalton was associated with sharply lower temperatures, my guess is this will kick in strongly over the next few years. I think some of the global warming alarmists realize that also, which accounts for the increasingly desperate agitation from that direction.
Here's one that compares his Wolf-style counts with NASA and SIDC (the Solar Influences Data Center in Belgium). I didn't embed it since it's wide enough to affect formatting.
At any rate, I'd recommend bookmarking that site if you have an interest in solar astronomy, he's covering things that so far NOAA/NASA isn't.
I hope it was interesting!