5 ms·

> Imagine a power-grid that no longer loses power to electrical resistence in the wires. From what I can see the power loss is in the 8-15% range. It'd be awes

> Imagine a power-grid that no longer loses power to electrical resistence in the wires. From what I can see the power loss is in the 8-15% range. It'd be awesome to save that, but it's not game changing, and you have to take into account the cost of replacing the wires.

BirAdam 3y ago
Well, that's true, but there are also more important applications: reducing heat and power loss in chips, increasing the efficiency of electric motors, increasing the efficiency of electromagnets, decreasing charge times for batteries, and so on. I may not say as important as fire, but it would certainly be in the same league as the integrated circuit.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  The electromagnets are losing a notable amount to resistance in a way that superconducting could help. The chips and batteries are not. I don't know why people even bring up batteries. They're not going to make any difference to batteries that I'm aware of. In theory you could use superconducting coils as storage, but that's on the level of bulk capacitors, not batteries.
usrbinbash 3y ago
> It'd be awesome to save that, but it's not game changing An 8-15% increase in available electricity without any new power plants built isn't game changing? The ability to transport power over longer distances, making eg. solar farms in remote locations suddenly feasible projects isn't game changing? > and you have to take into account the cost of replacing the wires No I really don't have to, as we, as a species, seem to have money in abundance. What we do not have in abundance, is biospheres. We have exactly one of those, and if it's ruined, all the money won't help. The ability to suddenly boost the efficiency of our electrical grids by 8-15% would not solely solve the problems our species currently causes for itself, but it would help a ton.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  Costs are not just money. There is an environmental cost to making and installing things. Spending the same amount of money on green power generation would probably help the biosphere much more. > making eg. solar farms in remote locations suddenly feasible We can already get losses down to a couple percent per thousand kilometers. Those farms are already feasible.
  - usrbinbash 3y ago
    > We can already get losses down to a couple percent per thousand kilometers. Yes, and if we could squeeze down these couple percent to a <1%, the same farm would be even better.
- breuleux 3y ago
  > The ability to suddenly boost the efficiency of our electrical grids by 8-15% would not solely solve the problems our species currently causes for itself, but it would help a ton. That's far from clear. If our grids are 8-15% more efficient and the cost of electricity falls accordingly, it will boost demand and we may end up needing more power plants than we otherwise would have. If the goal is to reduce the consumption of a resource, making its consumption more efficient is often counterproductive (see [1,2,3]). Granted, if the alternative is burning fossil fuel then it's a good thing! But once electricity becomes more economical than fossil fuels for all uses, making it even cheaper is not going to help the biosphere. And I think that's probably going to happen before we have a room temperature superconductor that can be used in power transmission. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazzoom%E2%80%93Brookes_postulate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazzoom%E2%80%93Brookes_postu... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation)

BirAdam 3y ago

Well, that's true, but there are also more important applications: reducing heat and power loss in chips, increasing the efficiency of electric motors, increasing the efficiency of electromagnets, decreasing charge times for batteries, and so on. I may not say as important as fire, but it would certainly be in the same league as the integrated circuit.

Dylan16807 3y ago
The electromagnets are losing a notable amount to resistance in a way that superconducting could help. The chips and batteries are not. I don't know why people even bring up batteries. They're not going to make any difference to batteries that I'm aware of. In theory you could use superconducting coils as storage, but that's on the level of bulk capacitors, not batteries.

usrbinbash 3y ago

> It'd be awesome to save that, but it's not game changing An 8-15% increase in available electricity without any new power plants built isn't game changing? The ability to transport power over longer distances, making eg. solar farms in remote locations suddenly feasible projects isn't game changing? > and you have to take into account the cost of replacing the wires No I really don't have to, as we, as a species, seem to have money in abundance. What we do not have in abundance, is biospheres. We have exactly one of those, and if it's ruined, all the money won't help. The ability to suddenly boost the efficiency of our electrical grids by 8-15% would not solely solve the problems our species currently causes for itself, but it would help a ton.

Dylan16807 3y ago
Costs are not just money. There is an environmental cost to making and installing things. Spending the same amount of money on green power generation would probably help the biosphere much more. > making eg. solar farms in remote locations suddenly feasible We can already get losses down to a couple percent per thousand kilometers. Those farms are already feasible.
- usrbinbash 3y ago
  > We can already get losses down to a couple percent per thousand kilometers. Yes, and if we could squeeze down these couple percent to a <1%, the same farm would be even better.
breuleux 3y ago
> The ability to suddenly boost the efficiency of our electrical grids by 8-15% would not solely solve the problems our species currently causes for itself, but it would help a ton. That's far from clear. If our grids are 8-15% more efficient and the cost of electricity falls accordingly, it will boost demand and we may end up needing more power plants than we otherwise would have. If the goal is to reduce the consumption of a resource, making its consumption more efficient is often counterproductive (see [1,2,3]). Granted, if the alternative is burning fossil fuel then it's a good thing! But once electricity becomes more economical than fossil fuels for all uses, making it even cheaper is not going to help the biosphere. And I think that's probably going to happen before we have a room temperature superconductor that can be used in power transmission. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazzoom%E2%80%93Brookes_postulate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazzoom%E2%80%93Brookes_postu... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation)