Fuel cells are just another transformer like the dynamo, or any kind of motor. They turn one kind of energy into another and in the context of hydrogen (which you could produce out of water using electricity as a means of storing energy) it serves to reverse the storage step. This is nice to have but just like nuclear power it's a variation on stuff that we already have, it is at best a quantitative change (and hopefully an improvement).
Room temperature / ambient pressure super conductivity is something we do not currently have. The difference between having that and not having that is a qualitative difference and hence it will enable a whole raft of applications for which we currently do not have a solution.
> By that logic a super conductor is just a variation of a conductor.
No it is not. The difference between 0.1 and 0.0 can't be expressed in orders of magnitude.
> Nuclear power is more distinct from burning coal than any superconductor is distinct from copper wire.
Nuclear power is an incredible invention. Unfortunately it has some problems that won't go away by wishing it to be so, and there are many similarities with coal (as well as some obviously differences).
But this thread isn't about coal vs nuclear.
Frankly, if you don't actually see the difference between the relative importance of superconductors vs copper wire and nuclear vs coal then I really don't think I have anything to say that will interest you. Suffice to say that nuclear didn't change the world all that much (except in a weapons sense) but superconductors at room temperature and ambient pressure have the potential to change the world in ways that would be hard to even imagine. Even if true I still don't think it would be in time to help us address some of the more urgent problems we are facing. Neither does nuclear. And come to think of it: if this tech is real (big if) then it will actually probably cause a revolution in nuclear as well because it would allow for nuclear power to be transmitted the world over without the non-proliferation headaches associated with shipping reactors to various countries. It wouldn't solve the waste problem (though there are some interesting reactor designs now) and it won't happen overnight but it would make a difference.
> superconductors ... have the potential to change the world in ways that would be hard to even imagine.
Such as? I do not see how superconductors help with the challenges of Climate Change, food insecurity or danger of nuclear war. What will be the change for the average Joe? Maybe a better electric car?
Energy storage and distribution alone can affect all three of your examples and they are very trivial ones. Then there is medicine, possibly a better shot at fusion and so on. Better electric cars are at the bottom of my wish list (because they're still cars). But yes, those too (much lighter but more powerful motors means you can do away with the drive train completely and it would also allow you to get rid of the brakes) assuming the superconductivity can be maintained in strong magnetic fields (not a given).
okay, could you be more spesific - what kind of improvement can we expect in storage? Is the improvement measurable - like will I be able to buy more kilowathours of storage per dollar?
You'll be able to buy more KWh of storage per dollar (but likely not initially) and it will be relatively dense compared to current - pun intended - options and very likely have a much higher number of cycles (because there is no chemical cycle, just electron movement). The 'if only we had a room temperature superconductor' list of inventions that got temporarily shelved is longer than my arm, the words 'game changer' were never more applicable. If it is replicated. If it can manufactured competitively. If it (or a variation) works at higher current densities.
Nuclear power and coal power are both heat engines turning heat into mechanical energy and subsequently electricity. They merely use a different heat source.
They share a lot of qualities because of that. They are relatively centralized and best run in a base-load rather than a load-following mode to reduce mechanical stress and increase longevity.
>Nuclear power and coal power are both heat engines turning heat into mechanical energy and subsequently electricity. They merely use a different heat source.
Not completely true. There are some experimental nuclear reactors that convert nuclear energy directly to electricity without the heat cycle, such as [Helion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helion_Energy).
When presenting working experimental nuclear reactors Helion is not the company that I would use as my example. They are borderline scammy and given their lack of progress they seem to be stuck in the moving the goalposts phase for a long long time now. I wouldn't bet on them ever completing a working reactor that produces net power.
Maybe, but my point is that it does seem to be possible to generate electricity directly from nuclear reactions, without going through a thermal cycle (making heat, creating steam, using that to turn a turbine). I think there's some other experimental process that promises to do this with fission.
Room temperature / ambient pressure super conductivity is something we do not currently have. The difference between having that and not having that is a qualitative difference and hence it will enable a whole raft of applications for which we currently do not have a solution.