I feel like any effect on climate change mitigation would come as a side effect of the insane energy efficiency that could result from superconductivity.
Not just making current devices/energy grid/batteries more efficient, but also for some of these situations where they say “ok we’ve made a proof-of-concept for a carbon scrubber that works, but it creates 3x more carbon emissions than it removes due to power requirements”…if that ratio gets flipped, suddenly it’s viable.
Sabine’s latest video has her very sceptical about whether it’s superconductivity at all.
A recent video? I only see one from 4 months ago, but that was about a different claim. There’s all kinds of drama going on with that. The new claim is spectacularly more important, if it’s true, because the preparation is simple, the materials are common, and it’s at ambient pressure. There’s drama here too, but what are you gonna do, there’s people involved. I see she’s liked some related tweets, so I hope she covers it Wednesday. Maybe Europeans get to see things earlier than we do though.
I think, as gman mentioned, energy storage would be huge. Transmission, eh, idk, maybe eventually. It would help with magnetic confinement fusion, though that’s still gotta be a ways out. Particle accelerators have to benefit. Imaging devices. Those two have medical applications, so that’s cool. Possible space applications in future propulsion systems. Maybe sending stuff to orbit with railguns. Lots more. There would be military applications, so, you know, trade-offs. 
I’m thinking this is a big enough topic, at least while it’s hot, to revive the science thread.
Quantum computing might be the only thing I would consider has a chance to solve the climate crisis (Still an insane outside shot, but at least present in my mind.) The next step in the adage of “advancement in the future is so outside our scope of understanding that it will appear as magic” is the promise of quantum computing. We have an idea of what it can do, but the ultimate applications of what can be done with it are so far outside of our current realm of physical understanding that it will seem magical.
I’m not sure. They could probably give us a much better understanding of the processes involved and a greater accuracy in forecasting, but leading to actual solutions is really unclear to me.
They’d help with the modelling of potential solutions I guess and maybe help us steer away from some pretty horrible side effects which I think is most people’s concern about pumping chemicals into the atmosphere.
Im with you, the only way to fix the path we are on at this point is going to have to be something world shattering. I don’t know what it is right now, but that’s kind of the promise of quantum computing.
I’ve been to Juneau a number of times (all during the summer), since my ex-wife has family there. I remember that for one trip, my BIL said “You should come during the first two weeks of July, since that’s the best chance to see the sun.”
The trip we made in early July had the best weather of the summer trips, as it was sunny and warm almost the entire time. In fact, by the 5th consequent day without rain, locals in the street were literally asking each other “It’s been really dusty lately, hasn’t it?”
When they say Miami will be underwater sometime between 2050-2100, what does that look like? Will they just turn off the power and abandon all the skyscrapers and you end up with squatting boat people?
modeling the human brain would be possible with quantum computing, and thus we’re closer to artificial general intelligence and artificial super intelligence.
We don’t need magical solutions. We need to build stuff that already works.
Lots of wind. Lots of solar. Lots of high voltage power lines. Lots of pumped hydro. Heat pumps and electrify everything.
This gets us most of the way.
There’s a few emerging tech that are useful but not essential.
Doing all of this will cost about 18 trillion per year for 30 years. For the whole planet.
The fact we are not doing this fast enough is a political problem, not a technology problem.
meh, small modular reactors for remote communities and more full size reactors for cities.
Also, people in deep red countries could at least try to consume at perfectly comfortable levels like the people in the light red countries.
i admire your optimistic attitude however you do realize that if this room temp superconductivity is actually a thing there is still an awful lot of people whose livelihoods depend on it not being a thing.
Without wanting to get into it, you should know that there are very few people who are experts in energy who think nuclear is a major part of the solution.
Not least because we have to reduce emissions immediately. Nuclear is a 10 to 15 year play at best in most places.
Nuclear is most often used as a distraction by the bad guys as a way to derail renewables.
Why not lots of nuclear?
Edit:
Didn’t see this subsequent post. I wish you would get into it.
The main reason why nuclear is not part of the solution is also largely political as far as I can tell.
Ok. Sure.
Nuclear IS politically challenging. We can wish it was the other way, but it’s not. This will impact the next point.
Speed to build. Even with everything going full pace. Nuclear is incredibly complicated to build. We don’t need something in 10 years. We need it now.
It’s baseload. It doesn’t fit well with a high renewables grid. Solar and wind are cheap and getting cheaper. The grid over the next 50 years will have a ton of variable renewables, unless planners actively try and stop them. The economics of nuclear work really poorly when wind and solar are pumping out a ton of free (at the margin) power for most hours of the day.
Facts vs fiction. Small modular reactions are new tech. Maybe they will work. Maybe the won’t. The first ones won’t be fast and won’t be cheap.
The consensus of those who aren’t opposed to nuclear outright is to keep them open when you have them, and to expand your existing nuclear program if you already have one AND you’re connected to a big enough grid AND you have social licence to do so.
Like many things, the bad guys in this debate propose nuclear as the “common sense” solution while misunderstanding the whole area.
None of these is a reason for nuclear to not be part of the solution. Except for the political stuff. A lot more nuclear in 10yrs would be helpful. Even if it was without any small modular.
On a related topic. One lense for understanding competing technologies in this space is engineering on the one hand and mass production on the other.
Building and engineering a custom job from scratch is hard, expensive and doesn’t scale well.
With this lense I’m bullish on
And bearish on
Finishing the nuclear discussion. One of the most successful nuclear industries was France. Who basically found a model that worked and built 60 identical power stations.
Many other places (including the US) keep trying out new tech and building the first of a kind. That doesn’t scale well
I mean. Okay? That’s just an assertion and many people who know this stuff better than either of us disagree. Not sure how we continue this discussion.
Nah, it’s basic logic. Let’s go through them separately
Political. Granted that’s a problem
Takes a long time. Sure. I’m pretty sure the Earth is gonna be around in 10 yrs. Are you arguing that more nuclear in 10 years time won’t help. Like at all?
Grid compatibility. Obviously some countries already have a lot of nuclear power and can accommodate more nuclear power. Those countries can expand their nuclear energy sources. Even you seem to admit that the experts are cool with this idea. Even just limiting expansion to places where there is no grid issue seems helpful.
Small modular. I’m saying forget about it. Just expand existing technologies.
I guess if you just want to keep appealing to authority instead of just telling us what you think that authority is saying, then we’re probably not going to get very far.
