This isn’t true… Resistance of conductors is not what’s holding battery technology back. It’s battery chemistry. You could improve some efficiency with superconductors but the chemistry is really the limiting factor these days.
If you’re referring to more efficient computers, that will land you in the same situation. Minor improvement in efficiency, but the power hog for that is transistor switching which won’t be improved with superconductors.
I think what they’re referring to is the idea that superconductors can trap current effectively indefinitely; more like replacing a battery with a capacitor than enhancing existing battery chemistry.
That’s not going to happen though. Superconductors won’t make capacitors store energy for longer durations. They won’t improve battery chemistry technology. They won’t significantly improve CPU efficiency. They’d make consumer electronics slightly more efficient, but replacing all the conductors in your phone with superconductors isn’t going to make your battery last even 25% longer.
You’ve misunderstood me. None of those things are what that commenter is referring to. It’s not about improving another energy storage technology by using superconductors, it’s about having a room temperature, ambient pressure version of an existing technology that we already use superconductors for.
Understood, my mistake. This is pure speculation, but I doubt you’d see those in consumer electronics. Those energy storage devices would essentially be very power electromagnets and I really don’t think people would be walking around with those in their pockets. I do agree that they would be super useful for grid-level energy storage though! If you can engineer around the large magnetic field they’d create it would be a super efficient energy storage device!
Also, sorry in advance - this is me being nit-picky, but that would be more analogous to replacing a battery with an inductor (not a capacitor). Inductors store energy in magnetic fields, capacitors store them in electric fields. Doesn’t really matter… I’m just being pedantic.
Can you elaborate on this? I always thought the limits on batteries was the energy density of the chemistry rather than heat/conductivity of the components. What am I missing?
More efficient battery technology. Imagine being able to have a battery in your laptop that lasts for weeks.
This isn’t true… Resistance of conductors is not what’s holding battery technology back. It’s battery chemistry. You could improve some efficiency with superconductors but the chemistry is really the limiting factor these days.
If you’re referring to more efficient computers, that will land you in the same situation. Minor improvement in efficiency, but the power hog for that is transistor switching which won’t be improved with superconductors.
I think what they’re referring to is the idea that superconductors can trap current effectively indefinitely; more like replacing a battery with a capacitor than enhancing existing battery chemistry.
That’s not going to happen though. Superconductors won’t make capacitors store energy for longer durations. They won’t improve battery chemistry technology. They won’t significantly improve CPU efficiency. They’d make consumer electronics slightly more efficient, but replacing all the conductors in your phone with superconductors isn’t going to make your battery last even 25% longer.
You’ve misunderstood me. None of those things are what that commenter is referring to. It’s not about improving another energy storage technology by using superconductors, it’s about having a room temperature, ambient pressure version of an existing technology that we already use superconductors for.
Understood, my mistake. This is pure speculation, but I doubt you’d see those in consumer electronics. Those energy storage devices would essentially be very power electromagnets and I really don’t think people would be walking around with those in their pockets. I do agree that they would be super useful for grid-level energy storage though! If you can engineer around the large magnetic field they’d create it would be a super efficient energy storage device!
Also, sorry in advance - this is me being nit-picky, but that would be more analogous to replacing a battery with an inductor (not a capacitor). Inductors store energy in magnetic fields, capacitors store them in electric fields. Doesn’t really matter… I’m just being pedantic.
Fair points!
Can you elaborate on this? I always thought the limits on batteries was the energy density of the chemistry rather than heat/conductivity of the components. What am I missing?