One of the most befuddling problems in our energy systems is the loss of electricity as it travels along wires. The only materials that can conduct electricity without any loss are called superconductors. Ok, cool. So let’s just make lots of those, right?
Well, not so fast. Superconductors must be cooled to minus 320 degrees Fahrenheit and they require ungodly amounts of pressure to work correctly. So, that’s why we so often just roll over and deal with the inefficiency of conveying electricity. It just is what it is. Well, make that it was what it was.
Scientists at University of Rochester have created a new superconductor that operates at room temperature and requires one one-thousandth of the pressure of previous superconductors. A research scientist at a different university haled the new superconductor as ready to be made into a commercially viable product. That’s an uncommon characteristic of scientific discoveries – most require years to be ready for mass consumption.
The new superconductor is called Reddmatter. It has tremendous potential to solve vexing energy problems (and thus help the environment.) We could create electrical grids that experience no loss as the current travels. Reddmatter could push along the development of nuclear fusion reactors. It can also help in the development of longer-lasting batteries. It is a major breakthrough in our progress toward an electric world.
We will strive to stay up to date on Reddmatter as it (we hope) improves our world. This short article is part of a series designed to report on how progress, science and humanism are pushing us forward as a species. The reports remind us that humans are amazing problem solvers.
Problem Solvers series is inspired by Steven Pinker’s Enlightenment Now.
Source: “New Superconductor Is Called a Breakthrough,” Aylin Woodward, Wall Street Journal, 3/9/2023
Link to review of Enlightenment Now
Link to other essays in the Problem Solvers category.
Posted by Pablo 6/30/2022
As exciting as this is, it appears that nature magazine has retracted this report. The lead scientist has been accused of plagiarism and inaccuracy. It’s always disheartening to get excited about a scientific breakthrough and have it crash around you.
Seems to me that you might want to consider taking this article down or dramatically rewriting it. Isn’t it wrong to report on a scientific breakthrough that turns out to be nothing?