Petrol is just "better" coal. Except that you can't make flight with steam engines.

When room-temperature SC becomes possible, previously unthinkable applications suddenly become viable.

Maybe, but the same was already said when cuprate SC appeared in the late eighties with their relatively high critical T°, but they haven't really fulfilled their promise…

Are they really the same though? I mean we are talking about room temperature, not the"(relatively) high temperature", a term that is arguably misleading to a layperson.

I'd imagine most people who are informed of the difference would recognize that cuprate SC is nowhere near as useful.

Every article older than a couple weeks talking about superconductors goes on and on about how useful they are, except for the logistics of keeping them cold

Example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_magnetic_ene...

Superconductors suporting high current are incredibly useful, but that's a big caveat. There's a reason MRI scans still use the super tedious helium-cooling instead of a much simpler nitrogen cooking allowed by cuprates: the cuprates SC aren't good enough for MRI.

Iirc the LHC experiment would not be possible without those superconductors. That’s a pretty big deal.

Just to be the pedantic one… I did some searching and found one single example of a steam-powered aircraft that actually flew. A bunch of other attempts are listed on wiki, all unsuccessful.

https://books.google.com/books?id=AygDAAAAMBAJ&dq=Popular+Sc...

And thanks, now I am researching small steam boilers that I could install in a Pietenpol homebuilt aircraft that a friend and I have been talking about building for a few years now. All I need is 30 kilowatts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietenpol_Air_Camper

I knew it!

Yeah, I really meant coal-powered steam engines.

If you built a coal gasifier, or maybe used a powdered/pelletized form of coal, I could see it being plausible. (but still dumb)

Having just returned from a week at the Experimental Aircraft Association’s yearly gathering, I’m kind of interested in using up some of my employer’s time to see if I can make it work, at least on paper. Luckily I even have a budget line available for silly studies like this.

Sweet! I found a video clip at https://archive.org/details/turner_video_11514 at timestamp 54:47 for about 20 seconds.

(Found that reference via https://web.archive.org/web/20030203103015/http://www.flyste... which I found via https://archive.org/details/australian_model_engineering-iss... )

But not visiting Andromeda, the next star system. Which would be the only such application I can think of now.

As if the US is the only country. Plenty of EU countries, China, and Japan would invest in developing even higher speed rail options.

I'm French, and France has one of the biggest high-speed train network, and the limitation to build additionnal lines isn't a technological one…

I'd agree that it's not technological: it's cost and practicality.

trains that float above the rail means less maintenance. the high cost of trains is partly due to the maintenance of the rail network.

The speed of trains is generally not limited by engineering. It’s limited by corners, i.e. obstacles. There are already very fast trains in existence that don’t use maglev.

You're assuming they'd replace existing routes rather than build new routes that would suit the higher speeds.

That's the main problem, building a rail line zigzagging around the country is arguably a ton easier than having to legislate, seize, steal and forcibly bulldoze a straight path for a maglev.

…and sometimes there are obstacles that you can’t bulldoze. Mountains, rivers, towns, etc. You can build tunnels and bridges but it’s very expensive just to get people to their destination a little faster. The temptation to add a little bend is strong, but the smaller the minimum turning radius, the slower the maximum speed, and the higher the chance that you don’t need maglev at all.

It’s very dependent on geography. Ironically the US is a much better candidate for maglev than Europe with its wide unpopulated expanses.

Ah, but how many countries would develop superconducting maglevs just to fund their defense program that's using similar research to make superconducting rail guns?

Probably zero. The problem with current railguns is not that they have too much electrical resistance but that their barrel wear is much too high for practical use. Superconductors wouldn't solve that.

In any case countries that want to spend money on military research just do so, using the budget they allot to military R&D. There's no need to try and hide that you are researching railguns.

SMES systems offer grid-level energy storage at about 98% efficiency. You could also move nuclear reactors to the middle of the desert because no one wants them in their backyard, then losslessly transport their power back to the grid. Same for bringing power from solar and wind installations. These are just two examples with immediate commercial application. The economics of energy production shift when you eliminate 15% of the cost and distance limitations. That would have a big impact on decarbonization. Longer term, josephson junctions replace transistors in processors.

You could put nuclear reactors in the middle of the desert today (ignoring cooling for now). The reasons we don't typically do it has nothing to do with resistance.