Room-temperature Superconductors

They would transform the grid--if they can exist at all

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

You can build a coal-fired power plant just about anywhere. Renewables, on the other hand, are finicky. The strongest winds blow across the high plains. The sun shines brightest on the desert. Transporting that energy into cities hundreds of kilometers away will be one of the great challenges of the switch to renewable energy.

The most advanced superconducting cable can move those megawatts thousands of kilometers with losses of only a few percent. Yet there is a catch: the cable must be kept in a bath of liquid nitrogen at 77 kelvins (or –196 degrees Celsius). This kind of deployment, in turn, requires pumps and refrigeration units every kilometer or so, greatly increasing the cost and complexity of superconducting cable projects.

Superconductors that work at ordinary temperatures and pressures would enable a truly global energy supply. The Saharan sun could power western Europe via superconducting cables strung across the floor of the Mediterranean Sea. Yet the trick to making a room-temperature superconductor is just as much of a mystery today as it was in 1986, when researchers constructed the first superconducting materials that worked at the relatively high temperatures of liquid nitrogen (previous substances needed to be chilled down to 23 kelvins or less).


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Two years ago the discovery of an entirely new class of superconductor—one based on iron—raised hopes that theorists might be able to divine the mechanism at work in high-temperature superconductors [see “An Iron Key to High-Temperature Superconductivity?” by Graham P. Collins; Scientific American, August 2009]. With such insights in hand, perhaps a path toward room-temperature superconductors would come into view. But progress has remained slow. The winds of change don’t always blow on cue.

Michael Moyer is the editor in charge of physics and space coverage at Scientific American. Previously he spent eight years at Popular Science magazine, where he was the articles editor. He was awarded the 2005 American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award for his article "Journey to the 10th Dimension," and has appeared on CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox and the Discovery Channel. He studied physics at the University of California at Berkeley and at Columbia University.

More by Michael Moyer
Scientific American Magazine Vol 302 Issue 6This article was published with the title “Room-temperature Superconductors” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 302 No. 6 (), p. 43
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0610-43

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe