Superconducting magnetic energy storage, practical?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES) systems and their practical applications. It highlights that while superconductors can store energy in their magnetic fields, the cost-effectiveness of such systems is currently impractical compared to lithium-ion batteries, with the LHC's energy storage costing approximately $2,000,000 per kWh. The conversation also touches on the theoretical modeling of superconducting carrier electrons, comparing them to water in a dam or flowing in a trench, emphasizing the importance of the energy gap in these models.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of superconductivity and Cooper pairs
  • Familiarity with magnetic fields and energy storage mechanisms
  • Knowledge of energy storage costs and comparisons
  • Basic principles of electromagnetic induction
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the principles of Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES)
  • Explore the cost analysis of SMES versus lithium-ion batteries
  • Study the theoretical models of superconducting carrier electrons
  • Investigate the applications of SMES in existing technologies like MRI systems and the LHC
USEFUL FOR

Engineers, physicists, and energy storage researchers interested in superconductivity, energy storage solutions, and the economic feasibility of advanced energy systems.

zhanhai
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
Storing energy in a system means to raise the internal energy of it. A system could be in superconducting phase because the latter has correspondingly lower internal energy. How can energy be stored in a phase that has the lower energy? When energy is injected into the system, it would leave superconducting phase.

Is there a dam-like mechanism between superconducting state and normal state? If yes, what is it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
zhanhai said:
A system could be in superconducting phase because the latter has correspondingly lower internal energy.
The cooper pairs have a slightly lower energy than individual electrons, but you don't want to break them up in superconducting energy storages so this number does not matter.
The magnetic field around the superconductor (from the current flow) can store energy.
 
mfb said:
The cooper pairs have a slightly lower energy than individual electrons, but you don't want to break them up in superconducting energy storages so this number does not matter.
The magnetic field around the superconductor (from the current flow) can store energy.

If an electron becomes a carrier, the corresponding increase of magnetic energy is associated with that electron's state so its total energy increases, and the electron possibly could release some of its energy to avoid that the energy of the electron system becomes too high. I just tried a model and it did include such a process.

BTW, many web pages of SMES have become dead links. Is there any evidenced SMES device?
 
zhanhai said:
If an electron becomes a carrier, the corresponding increase of magnetic energy is associated with that electron's state so its total energy increases, and the electron possibly could release some of its energy to avoid that the energy of the electron system becomes too high. I just tried a model and it did include such a process.
This is not true, as you can see from superconducting energy storages. The energy is in the field.
BTW, many web pages of SMES have become dead links. Is there any evidenced SMES device?
Every MRI system works as one, although a recovery of the energy is not done. The LHC magnets store a huge amount of energy (~10 GJ). Wikipedia has some non-dead links. They exist as commercial products.
 
The question was "practical". The LHC has a capital cost of something like $2000000 per kWh, give or take a factor of 2. That ignores operating costs. The equivalent cost for a lithium-ion battery is $20. So, no, it's not practical, and costs will need to fall by something like 100,000 or more before it becomes so.
 
The topic has "practical", but the questions inside were purely about the possibility and if devices exist: yes they do. The LHC is not designed to be a cheap energy storage, obviously, as it is a particle collider.
 
Fine - I'll spot you a factor of 100. Or even 1000. :)
 
The magnetic field stores energy and when the current decreases the energy is released as induced electric field, which does work on carrier electrons. OK for this. But the superconducting carrier electrons do not store energy.

The superconducting carrier electrons could be modeled such that they like water confined by a dam; or in another model, they could alternatively be modeled as water flowing in a trench. I have worked out a "trench" result. A dam scenario is that they are confined by a energy gap.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K