4 ms·

Specifically you could lay undersea superconducting cables around the world and rely on a global electrical grid which allows for nearly 100% solar generation.

Specifically you could lay undersea superconducting cables around the world and rely on a global electrical grid which allows for nearly 100% solar generation. Superconducting magnets become cheap and widely available which allows for maglev trains at massive scale. Costs for the LHC and similar experiments would drop dramatically. MRIs would only require air conditioning, if that; Modern cell phones are sufficient to compute tomography. Magnetic confinement fusion also becomes cheaper and easier. Electric cars could use superconducting motor magnets allowing for even greater power to weight ratios and efficiency. Just a few things off the top of my non-mechanical-engineer head.

nine_k 3y ago
I think not just maglev: a lot of typical bearings could possibly be switched from ball / roll to maglev, saving a lot on friction and maintenance. Undersea cables are a pie in the sky; current high-load cables in urban an industrial areas could be made much smaller, simpler, and lossless. I wonder if transformers, currently huge and expensive, could be made better with this, too; at least the ohmic losses could be removed, and thus a lot of need for cooling, and the fire hazards.
- soperj 3y ago
  Why would you need transformers if you can send it losslessly?
  - duskwuff 3y ago
    Because, even in a superconductor, current density isn't unlimited. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_field
thfuran 3y ago
Global electric grids aren't on a common standard. They're not all the same frequency or voltage, so you can't just wire them together. And changing over would be a mess. MRIs require very high field strength that this superconductor likely cannot sustain.
- benlivengood 3y ago
  But the interties between grids are often high voltage DC which would work fine between incompatible AC grids. I think, but am not sure, that you'd always want DC superconducting transmission lines to avoid inductive losses.
hinkley 3y ago
You could also build power transformers that are more efficient. Transformers can be up to 95-98% efficient when running at their ideal power levels, but those numbers fall off when they are operating outside of that range. So you're probably looking at an almost 10% reduction of power usage by electronic equipment even before you get to making superconducting integrated circuits.
toast0 3y ago
> Specifically you could lay undersea superconducting cables around the world and rely on a global electrical grid which allows for nearly 100% solar generation. Not really, when the sun is up over the Pacific ocean, there's not that much sun over land. Maybe a global grid happens anyway, but cabling losses aren't the only source of cost, so I'd put my money on more localized improvements. Better interconnection between and within local grids (maybe a viable Tres Amigas interconnection, but even just better connections between sections of the major grids would help with grid management. Improvements in motors, MRIs, magnetic bearings, transformers, etc.

nine_k 3y ago

I think not just maglev: a lot of typical bearings could possibly be switched from ball / roll to maglev, saving a lot on friction and maintenance. Undersea cables are a pie in the sky; current high-load cables in urban an industrial areas could be made much smaller, simpler, and lossless. I wonder if transformers, currently huge and expensive, could be made better with this, too; at least the ohmic losses could be removed, and thus a lot of need for cooling, and the fire hazards.

soperj 3y ago
Why would you need transformers if you can send it losslessly?
- duskwuff 3y ago
  Because, even in a superconductor, current density isn't unlimited. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_field

thfuran 3y ago

Global electric grids aren't on a common standard. They're not all the same frequency or voltage, so you can't just wire them together. And changing over would be a mess. MRIs require very high field strength that this superconductor likely cannot sustain.

benlivengood 3y ago
But the interties between grids are often high voltage DC which would work fine between incompatible AC grids. I think, but am not sure, that you'd always want DC superconducting transmission lines to avoid inductive losses.

hinkley 3y ago

You could also build power transformers that are more efficient. Transformers can be up to 95-98% efficient when running at their ideal power levels, but those numbers fall off when they are operating outside of that range. So you're probably looking at an almost 10% reduction of power usage by electronic equipment even before you get to making superconducting integrated circuits.

toast0 3y ago

> Specifically you could lay undersea superconducting cables around the world and rely on a global electrical grid which allows for nearly 100% solar generation. Not really, when the sun is up over the Pacific ocean, there's not that much sun over land. Maybe a global grid happens anyway, but cabling losses aren't the only source of cost, so I'd put my money on more localized improvements. Better interconnection between and within local grids (maybe a viable Tres Amigas interconnection, but even just better connections between sections of the major grids would help with grid management. Improvements in motors, MRIs, magnetic bearings, transformers, etc.