4 ms·

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
      "Beam of light shooting the heavens" value of "interesting", yes. Though I suppose it would look like a small tactical nuke in effect.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        No, at the breach it will just burn up until the arc dissipates. But it will be an impressive fireworks display. A superconductor is in the end just another conductor, it has a well defined current carrying capacity while superconducting and if it stops doing that then that current will suddenly see an increased resistance, how much current is moving through it at the time it failes determines how fast and how violent it burns out when it goes, but it won't be unlike another transmission line failure. Those are still very impressive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zib4IV2TIg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zib4IV2TIg It stays lit until the breaker goes at 3:57.
tsimionescu 3y ago
I believe the biggest envisioned possibility is superconducting power lines. Those would allow long-distance power transfer with minimal losses. In the most idealistic scenario, you could imagine a belt of solar power plants around the globe connected by superconducting power lines, providing solar power 24h a day. Of course, there are huge hurdles to such a project even if we did have the superconducting lines, but there are more realistic similar applications that might actually work.
- tebs1200 3y ago
  Yes. We can easily generate more than enough renewable energy, just not when and where we need it. Being able to transmit energy over vast distances would greatly improve the economics of our existing renewable energy generation solutions.
- yyyk 3y ago
  >In the most idealistic scenario, you could imagine a belt of solar power plants around the globe connected by superconducting power lines There's no technical impairment for doing this with current tech, and it's not clear the new tech is cheaper. Power lines are already very efficient, especially the long-distance ones. We would save a bit on converting from HVDC to AC but that's also very efficient.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    The numbers I found on a quick search are 3% loss per 1000 km for HVDC lines. That's a pretty huge loss for the 20k+ km lines you'd need to transmit power from daytime to nighttime areas on the globe.
    - yyyk 3y ago
      I thought these were mostly fixed conversion losses, but checking this again you're right, it's 3% per 1000km (not including the conversion loss at the stations).
  - jacquesm 3y ago
Gud 3y ago
Fusion power require powerful magnets(essentially super conductivity is a requirement). Currently the best contender for commercial fusion is REBCO(see: Commonwealth Fusion Systems). With cheap fusion power, we can begin pumping that CO2 back into the ground and forget about using fossil fuels for energy entirely.
- nobodyandproud 3y ago
  Instead of pumping CO2, why not biochar?
- kolinko 3y ago
  With cheap fusion power we can convert CO2 back into kerosene/fuel, and use it as energy storage. It would be lovely ironic if in the future we all drove ICE cars, but just fuelled by clean and carbon-neutral gasoline.

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
    "Beam of light shooting the heavens" value of "interesting", yes. Though I suppose it would look like a small tactical nuke in effect.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      No, at the breach it will just burn up until the arc dissipates. But it will be an impressive fireworks display. A superconductor is in the end just another conductor, it has a well defined current carrying capacity while superconducting and if it stops doing that then that current will suddenly see an increased resistance, how much current is moving through it at the time it failes determines how fast and how violent it burns out when it goes, but it won't be unlike another transmission line failure. Those are still very impressive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zib4IV2TIg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zib4IV2TIg It stays lit until the breaker goes at 3:57.

tsimionescu 3y ago

I believe the biggest envisioned possibility is superconducting power lines. Those would allow long-distance power transfer with minimal losses. In the most idealistic scenario, you could imagine a belt of solar power plants around the globe connected by superconducting power lines, providing solar power 24h a day. Of course, there are huge hurdles to such a project even if we did have the superconducting lines, but there are more realistic similar applications that might actually work.

tebs1200 3y ago
Yes. We can easily generate more than enough renewable energy, just not when and where we need it. Being able to transmit energy over vast distances would greatly improve the economics of our existing renewable energy generation solutions.
yyyk 3y ago
>In the most idealistic scenario, you could imagine a belt of solar power plants around the globe connected by superconducting power lines There's no technical impairment for doing this with current tech, and it's not clear the new tech is cheaper. Power lines are already very efficient, especially the long-distance ones. We would save a bit on converting from HVDC to AC but that's also very efficient.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  The numbers I found on a quick search are 3% loss per 1000 km for HVDC lines. That's a pretty huge loss for the 20k+ km lines you'd need to transmit power from daytime to nighttime areas on the globe.
  - yyyk 3y ago
    I thought these were mostly fixed conversion losses, but checking this again you're right, it's 3% per 1000km (not including the conversion loss at the stations).
- jacquesm 3y ago

Gud 3y ago

Fusion power require powerful magnets(essentially super conductivity is a requirement). Currently the best contender for commercial fusion is REBCO(see: Commonwealth Fusion Systems). With cheap fusion power, we can begin pumping that CO2 back into the ground and forget about using fossil fuels for energy entirely.

nobodyandproud 3y ago
Instead of pumping CO2, why not biochar?
kolinko 3y ago
With cheap fusion power we can convert CO2 back into kerosene/fuel, and use it as energy storage. It would be lovely ironic if in the future we all drove ICE cars, but just fuelled by clean and carbon-neutral gasoline.