Superconductive magnet as a source of energy?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












9














Could we charge a superconductive magnet and use it as a source of energy?










share|cite|improve this question




























    9














    Could we charge a superconductive magnet and use it as a source of energy?










    share|cite|improve this question


























      9












      9








      9







      Could we charge a superconductive magnet and use it as a source of energy?










      share|cite|improve this question















      Could we charge a superconductive magnet and use it as a source of energy?







      electromagnetism magnetic-fields energy-conservation superconductivity






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 27 '18 at 22:08









      Qmechanic

      102k121831160




      102k121831160










      asked Dec 27 '18 at 1:13









      Marino KlisovichMarino Klisovich

      468




      468




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          18














          Yes. The energy expended in producing the magnetic field can be recovered during the field's collapse, which occurs after the current producing the field is shut off.



          For example, the amount of energy stored in the superconducting magnets that steer the particle beams in CERN's Large Hadron Collider is equal the the kinetic energy of a fully-loaded jumbo jet going 500 MPH. Shutting the magnets down requires dissipating all that energy, and if anything goes wrong during that process, parts of the collider will get blown to pieces in an instant.



          Note that the energy stored in the magnetic field of a superconducting magnet did not get there for free. When running, those magnets and the machinery needed to support them consume as much electrical power as a small city, for which CERN pays the bill.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Or even worse then blowing things up would be heating up the supercooled magnets.
            – Barfieldmv
            Dec 27 '18 at 10:12






          • 8




            @Barfieldmv Heating the supercooled magnets also blows them up (if not done in a controlled and slow way). That's what happened back in 2008 when it was first turned on and it took two years to fix.
            – Graipher
            Dec 27 '18 at 11:00






          • 2




            the net energy from a lightning strike isn't big enough to justify the cost of collecting it. because of the huge amount of bother in maintaining the liquid helium for the superconducting magnets, I see them as appropriate only in research and experimental settings. this would change when high-temperature superconductivity becomes real.
            – niels nielsen
            Dec 27 '18 at 17:59






          • 1




            this has in fact been considered as a way to temporarily store electrical power, but there are other ways (like ultracentrifuge flywheels) that do not require refrigeration and are portable.
            – niels nielsen
            Dec 28 '18 at 21:32






          • 1




            regarding safety, any energy storage methodology that exhibits similar energy density to gasoline is going to have hazards associated with it. For example, getting into a crash with a flywheel storage system will break the flywheel loose and it will either explode into a million pieces or take off a tremendous speed and strike something expensive. in the case of high-capacity batteries, simply shooting an arrow through it will short-circuit it internally, after which it will explode with great force.
            – niels nielsen
            Dec 28 '18 at 21:35


















          11














          Yes, in the same sense that you can store energy in a battery and then use the battery as a source of energy. See for example this Wikipedia article.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            );
            );
            , "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "151"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f450543%2fsuperconductive-magnet-as-a-source-of-energy%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            18














            Yes. The energy expended in producing the magnetic field can be recovered during the field's collapse, which occurs after the current producing the field is shut off.



            For example, the amount of energy stored in the superconducting magnets that steer the particle beams in CERN's Large Hadron Collider is equal the the kinetic energy of a fully-loaded jumbo jet going 500 MPH. Shutting the magnets down requires dissipating all that energy, and if anything goes wrong during that process, parts of the collider will get blown to pieces in an instant.



            Note that the energy stored in the magnetic field of a superconducting magnet did not get there for free. When running, those magnets and the machinery needed to support them consume as much electrical power as a small city, for which CERN pays the bill.






            share|cite|improve this answer




















            • Or even worse then blowing things up would be heating up the supercooled magnets.
              – Barfieldmv
              Dec 27 '18 at 10:12






            • 8




              @Barfieldmv Heating the supercooled magnets also blows them up (if not done in a controlled and slow way). That's what happened back in 2008 when it was first turned on and it took two years to fix.
              – Graipher
              Dec 27 '18 at 11:00






            • 2




              the net energy from a lightning strike isn't big enough to justify the cost of collecting it. because of the huge amount of bother in maintaining the liquid helium for the superconducting magnets, I see them as appropriate only in research and experimental settings. this would change when high-temperature superconductivity becomes real.
              – niels nielsen
              Dec 27 '18 at 17:59






            • 1




              this has in fact been considered as a way to temporarily store electrical power, but there are other ways (like ultracentrifuge flywheels) that do not require refrigeration and are portable.
              – niels nielsen
              Dec 28 '18 at 21:32






            • 1




              regarding safety, any energy storage methodology that exhibits similar energy density to gasoline is going to have hazards associated with it. For example, getting into a crash with a flywheel storage system will break the flywheel loose and it will either explode into a million pieces or take off a tremendous speed and strike something expensive. in the case of high-capacity batteries, simply shooting an arrow through it will short-circuit it internally, after which it will explode with great force.
              – niels nielsen
              Dec 28 '18 at 21:35















            18














            Yes. The energy expended in producing the magnetic field can be recovered during the field's collapse, which occurs after the current producing the field is shut off.



            For example, the amount of energy stored in the superconducting magnets that steer the particle beams in CERN's Large Hadron Collider is equal the the kinetic energy of a fully-loaded jumbo jet going 500 MPH. Shutting the magnets down requires dissipating all that energy, and if anything goes wrong during that process, parts of the collider will get blown to pieces in an instant.



            Note that the energy stored in the magnetic field of a superconducting magnet did not get there for free. When running, those magnets and the machinery needed to support them consume as much electrical power as a small city, for which CERN pays the bill.






            share|cite|improve this answer




















            • Or even worse then blowing things up would be heating up the supercooled magnets.
              – Barfieldmv
              Dec 27 '18 at 10:12






            • 8




              @Barfieldmv Heating the supercooled magnets also blows them up (if not done in a controlled and slow way). That's what happened back in 2008 when it was first turned on and it took two years to fix.
              – Graipher
              Dec 27 '18 at 11:00






            • 2




              the net energy from a lightning strike isn't big enough to justify the cost of collecting it. because of the huge amount of bother in maintaining the liquid helium for the superconducting magnets, I see them as appropriate only in research and experimental settings. this would change when high-temperature superconductivity becomes real.
              – niels nielsen
              Dec 27 '18 at 17:59






            • 1




              this has in fact been considered as a way to temporarily store electrical power, but there are other ways (like ultracentrifuge flywheels) that do not require refrigeration and are portable.
              – niels nielsen
              Dec 28 '18 at 21:32






            • 1




              regarding safety, any energy storage methodology that exhibits similar energy density to gasoline is going to have hazards associated with it. For example, getting into a crash with a flywheel storage system will break the flywheel loose and it will either explode into a million pieces or take off a tremendous speed and strike something expensive. in the case of high-capacity batteries, simply shooting an arrow through it will short-circuit it internally, after which it will explode with great force.
              – niels nielsen
              Dec 28 '18 at 21:35













            18












            18








            18






            Yes. The energy expended in producing the magnetic field can be recovered during the field's collapse, which occurs after the current producing the field is shut off.



            For example, the amount of energy stored in the superconducting magnets that steer the particle beams in CERN's Large Hadron Collider is equal the the kinetic energy of a fully-loaded jumbo jet going 500 MPH. Shutting the magnets down requires dissipating all that energy, and if anything goes wrong during that process, parts of the collider will get blown to pieces in an instant.



            Note that the energy stored in the magnetic field of a superconducting magnet did not get there for free. When running, those magnets and the machinery needed to support them consume as much electrical power as a small city, for which CERN pays the bill.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            Yes. The energy expended in producing the magnetic field can be recovered during the field's collapse, which occurs after the current producing the field is shut off.



            For example, the amount of energy stored in the superconducting magnets that steer the particle beams in CERN's Large Hadron Collider is equal the the kinetic energy of a fully-loaded jumbo jet going 500 MPH. Shutting the magnets down requires dissipating all that energy, and if anything goes wrong during that process, parts of the collider will get blown to pieces in an instant.



            Note that the energy stored in the magnetic field of a superconducting magnet did not get there for free. When running, those magnets and the machinery needed to support them consume as much electrical power as a small city, for which CERN pays the bill.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Dec 27 '18 at 3:13









            niels nielsenniels nielsen

            16.6k42755




            16.6k42755











            • Or even worse then blowing things up would be heating up the supercooled magnets.
              – Barfieldmv
              Dec 27 '18 at 10:12






            • 8




              @Barfieldmv Heating the supercooled magnets also blows them up (if not done in a controlled and slow way). That's what happened back in 2008 when it was first turned on and it took two years to fix.
              – Graipher
              Dec 27 '18 at 11:00






            • 2




              the net energy from a lightning strike isn't big enough to justify the cost of collecting it. because of the huge amount of bother in maintaining the liquid helium for the superconducting magnets, I see them as appropriate only in research and experimental settings. this would change when high-temperature superconductivity becomes real.
              – niels nielsen
              Dec 27 '18 at 17:59






            • 1




              this has in fact been considered as a way to temporarily store electrical power, but there are other ways (like ultracentrifuge flywheels) that do not require refrigeration and are portable.
              – niels nielsen
              Dec 28 '18 at 21:32






            • 1




              regarding safety, any energy storage methodology that exhibits similar energy density to gasoline is going to have hazards associated with it. For example, getting into a crash with a flywheel storage system will break the flywheel loose and it will either explode into a million pieces or take off a tremendous speed and strike something expensive. in the case of high-capacity batteries, simply shooting an arrow through it will short-circuit it internally, after which it will explode with great force.
              – niels nielsen
              Dec 28 '18 at 21:35
















            • Or even worse then blowing things up would be heating up the supercooled magnets.
              – Barfieldmv
              Dec 27 '18 at 10:12






            • 8




              @Barfieldmv Heating the supercooled magnets also blows them up (if not done in a controlled and slow way). That's what happened back in 2008 when it was first turned on and it took two years to fix.
              – Graipher
              Dec 27 '18 at 11:00






            • 2




              the net energy from a lightning strike isn't big enough to justify the cost of collecting it. because of the huge amount of bother in maintaining the liquid helium for the superconducting magnets, I see them as appropriate only in research and experimental settings. this would change when high-temperature superconductivity becomes real.
              – niels nielsen
              Dec 27 '18 at 17:59






            • 1




              this has in fact been considered as a way to temporarily store electrical power, but there are other ways (like ultracentrifuge flywheels) that do not require refrigeration and are portable.
              – niels nielsen
              Dec 28 '18 at 21:32






            • 1




              regarding safety, any energy storage methodology that exhibits similar energy density to gasoline is going to have hazards associated with it. For example, getting into a crash with a flywheel storage system will break the flywheel loose and it will either explode into a million pieces or take off a tremendous speed and strike something expensive. in the case of high-capacity batteries, simply shooting an arrow through it will short-circuit it internally, after which it will explode with great force.
              – niels nielsen
              Dec 28 '18 at 21:35















            Or even worse then blowing things up would be heating up the supercooled magnets.
            – Barfieldmv
            Dec 27 '18 at 10:12




            Or even worse then blowing things up would be heating up the supercooled magnets.
            – Barfieldmv
            Dec 27 '18 at 10:12




            8




            8




            @Barfieldmv Heating the supercooled magnets also blows them up (if not done in a controlled and slow way). That's what happened back in 2008 when it was first turned on and it took two years to fix.
            – Graipher
            Dec 27 '18 at 11:00




            @Barfieldmv Heating the supercooled magnets also blows them up (if not done in a controlled and slow way). That's what happened back in 2008 when it was first turned on and it took two years to fix.
            – Graipher
            Dec 27 '18 at 11:00




            2




            2




            the net energy from a lightning strike isn't big enough to justify the cost of collecting it. because of the huge amount of bother in maintaining the liquid helium for the superconducting magnets, I see them as appropriate only in research and experimental settings. this would change when high-temperature superconductivity becomes real.
            – niels nielsen
            Dec 27 '18 at 17:59




            the net energy from a lightning strike isn't big enough to justify the cost of collecting it. because of the huge amount of bother in maintaining the liquid helium for the superconducting magnets, I see them as appropriate only in research and experimental settings. this would change when high-temperature superconductivity becomes real.
            – niels nielsen
            Dec 27 '18 at 17:59




            1




            1




            this has in fact been considered as a way to temporarily store electrical power, but there are other ways (like ultracentrifuge flywheels) that do not require refrigeration and are portable.
            – niels nielsen
            Dec 28 '18 at 21:32




            this has in fact been considered as a way to temporarily store electrical power, but there are other ways (like ultracentrifuge flywheels) that do not require refrigeration and are portable.
            – niels nielsen
            Dec 28 '18 at 21:32




            1




            1




            regarding safety, any energy storage methodology that exhibits similar energy density to gasoline is going to have hazards associated with it. For example, getting into a crash with a flywheel storage system will break the flywheel loose and it will either explode into a million pieces or take off a tremendous speed and strike something expensive. in the case of high-capacity batteries, simply shooting an arrow through it will short-circuit it internally, after which it will explode with great force.
            – niels nielsen
            Dec 28 '18 at 21:35




            regarding safety, any energy storage methodology that exhibits similar energy density to gasoline is going to have hazards associated with it. For example, getting into a crash with a flywheel storage system will break the flywheel loose and it will either explode into a million pieces or take off a tremendous speed and strike something expensive. in the case of high-capacity batteries, simply shooting an arrow through it will short-circuit it internally, after which it will explode with great force.
            – niels nielsen
            Dec 28 '18 at 21:35











            11














            Yes, in the same sense that you can store energy in a battery and then use the battery as a source of energy. See for example this Wikipedia article.






            share|cite|improve this answer

























              11














              Yes, in the same sense that you can store energy in a battery and then use the battery as a source of energy. See for example this Wikipedia article.






              share|cite|improve this answer























                11












                11








                11






                Yes, in the same sense that you can store energy in a battery and then use the battery as a source of energy. See for example this Wikipedia article.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                Yes, in the same sense that you can store energy in a battery and then use the battery as a source of energy. See for example this Wikipedia article.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Dec 27 '18 at 1:16









                S. McGrewS. McGrew

                7,06721130




                7,06721130



























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded
















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f450543%2fsuperconductive-magnet-as-a-source-of-energy%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown






                    Popular posts from this blog

                    How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                    Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                    How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?