The article describes the proposed pipeline concept as 'promising', but to me it looks overly complicated and impractical.
They say "Larger-capacity, longer-distance and lower-loss transmission systems are eagerly wanted nowadays", which is true - but most of the loss in electricity grids is at the local level - and even there it's not high. Long distance HVDC transmission lines typically only lose about 3%, while overall grid loss in the US and EU is ~6%. Can this pipeline beat that when the energy required to cool it to 90 K is considered? I doubt it.
Aluminium conductor steel-reinforced cable is easy to manufacture, cheap and safe. In comparison this pipeline places explosive gases and high voltage electricity next to each other, with a difficult to maintain vacuum space between inner and outer layers. How they intend to achieve that in a form that can handle adverse environmental conditions is a mystery. Making it cheaper than a simple steel and aluminum cable seems like an impossible dream.
Superconductors are great when they are working, as they are able to carry high current with no loss. But if they warm up or the current exceeds a critical level they suddenly turn resistive and produce extreme heat. If the conductors overloaded even for an instant (perhaps due to a switching surge or lightening strike), or the coolant stopped flowing or developed a leak, the pipeline could blow up - with catastrophic results.
The article describes LNG as "clean energy". This is a lie. H
2 may be clean if produced by electrolysis, but it's probably more efficient to transport the
electricity and use it to produce H
2 close to the consumer.
We need to get off fossil fuels as soon as possible. This proposal touts improved electricity transmission efficiency as a rationale, but is actually promoting the continued use of fossil fuels.
