2 ms·

I've forgotten how many times one of the most important thresholds in our times has been bumped up a bit. Now we seem to be offered heaven on a plate. If supe

I've forgotten how many times one of the most important thresholds in our times has been bumped up a bit. Now we seem to be offered heaven on a plate. If superconductance can be reliably demonstrated at RTP (you wear a light cotton shirt, instead of 1cm thick fancy weaves involving an awful lot of rubber) then we are laughing all the way to ameliorating climate change. Even if this result is confirmed then I think it will take at least 20 years to dig in to reversing climate change. We live in unpleasant times.

dTal 3y ago
If the argument is that superconductivity = better efficiency = less energy use, then I am afraid that Jevon's Paradox has some bad news: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- jacquesm 3y ago
  No, the argument is that if this is true and it can be commercialized cost effectively that there may be an energy storage solution just over the horizon that would allow for all kinds of things that are currently impossible, such as summer/winter energy storage and other very nice to haves. It is obviously much too early to say anything about this so think of it as hope rather than anything more solid but it isn't necessarily about cheaper energy, just an almost perfect companion to cheap renewables whose main issue is that it is hard to store their output for the time when you need it most.
  - HideousKojima 3y ago
    It may also make the energy (and economic) costs of fusion make a lot more sense, since superconductors are used to contain the plasma in fusion reactors.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      There probably isn't a field that won't be affected by this if it holds up.
TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
How would superconductivity help to reverse climate change? Honest question.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  I'm not sure what the GP envisions but one thing you could use superconducting materials for that don't require a bunch of extra gear to operate is to store energy in loops of it. This may well allow for a relatively high storage density (but probably not nearly as high as chemical ways of storing that energy but with better efficiency, and for stationary applications density is less of a factor than for anything mobile) with near instant charge/discharge times. Kind of like a solid state version of a flywheel. That in turn could power an energy revolution which has the potential to reduce carbon based fuel consumption dramatically. That's SF right now, but there are pathways to very interesting futures unlocked by a material such as the one described in the paper, all of them subject to the usual caveats that it's a 'mere matter of engineering' and that it may prove to be far too costly in practice. And it wouldn't reverse climate change but it could help slow down the acceleration of climate change.
  - Filligree 3y ago
    The figures I’ve seen for superconducting energy storage are in the regime of “10GWh per km of cable”. Quite a bit more than chemical, in other words, the chief problem being what happens if it quenches. Or the cables break. And cost.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Room temperature super conductors don't quench. Or at least, not until they reach the temperature at which they no longer work as superconductors, which for this one is 127 degrees Celsius. That does make for an interesting failure mode if anything should every cause a small spot on a longer conductor to reach that temperature...
      - Filligree 3y ago
Flatcircle 3y ago
Climate change can be real, and the world can not fall apart, those two things can co exist. Everyone’s generation thought the world was falling apart. But it continues to get better.

dTal 3y ago

If the argument is that superconductivity = better efficiency = less energy use, then I am afraid that Jevon's Paradox has some bad news: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

jacquesm 3y ago
No, the argument is that if this is true and it can be commercialized cost effectively that there may be an energy storage solution just over the horizon that would allow for all kinds of things that are currently impossible, such as summer/winter energy storage and other very nice to haves. It is obviously much too early to say anything about this so think of it as hope rather than anything more solid but it isn't necessarily about cheaper energy, just an almost perfect companion to cheap renewables whose main issue is that it is hard to store their output for the time when you need it most.
- HideousKojima 3y ago
  It may also make the energy (and economic) costs of fusion make a lot more sense, since superconductors are used to contain the plasma in fusion reactors.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    There probably isn't a field that won't be affected by this if it holds up.

TedDoesntTalk 3y ago

How would superconductivity help to reverse climate change? Honest question.

jacquesm 3y ago
I'm not sure what the GP envisions but one thing you could use superconducting materials for that don't require a bunch of extra gear to operate is to store energy in loops of it. This may well allow for a relatively high storage density (but probably not nearly as high as chemical ways of storing that energy but with better efficiency, and for stationary applications density is less of a factor than for anything mobile) with near instant charge/discharge times. Kind of like a solid state version of a flywheel. That in turn could power an energy revolution which has the potential to reduce carbon based fuel consumption dramatically. That's SF right now, but there are pathways to very interesting futures unlocked by a material such as the one described in the paper, all of them subject to the usual caveats that it's a 'mere matter of engineering' and that it may prove to be far too costly in practice. And it wouldn't reverse climate change but it could help slow down the acceleration of climate change.
- Filligree 3y ago
  The figures I’ve seen for superconducting energy storage are in the regime of “10GWh per km of cable”. Quite a bit more than chemical, in other words, the chief problem being what happens if it quenches. Or the cables break. And cost.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Room temperature super conductors don't quench. Or at least, not until they reach the temperature at which they no longer work as superconductors, which for this one is 127 degrees Celsius. That does make for an interesting failure mode if anything should every cause a small spot on a longer conductor to reach that temperature...
    - Filligree 3y ago

Flatcircle 3y ago

Climate change can be real, and the world can not fall apart, those two things can co exist. Everyone’s generation thought the world was falling apart. But it continues to get better.