The trick with graphene is that a lot of its amazing properties only work when you have continuous perfect sheets of it, and making graphene like this is currently beyond us, for large scales anyways. It is true that graphene has very high electron mobility $\approx10^{5}~\mathrm{cm^2/Vs}$ at room temperature, which works out to on the order of $10~\mathrm{n\Omega\cdot m}$ in bulk (which assumes you can make a perfect multilayer structure that maintains the properties of a single sheet). An impressive figure, but only $\approx40\%$ better than copper.
Of course, copper is about 6 times more dense than graphene, so if mass is the main concern, graphene would be a pretty good improvement. Still, we're not talking about replacing $10~\mathrm{kg}$ of copper with a few milligrams. Given how much cheaper and easier it is to make metal wires, we're not at the point of using graphene for this kind of bulk application. There are also some more mundane problems to sort out, e.g. graphene is brittle like a ceramic, which might cause mechanical issues.
The trick with graphene is that a lot of its amazing properties only work when you have continuous perfect sheets of it, and making graphene like this is currently beyond us, for large scales anyways. It is true that graphene has very high electron mobility $\approx10^{5}~\mathrm{cm^2/Vs}$ at room temperature, which works out to on the order of $10~\mathrm{n\Omega\cdot m}$ in bulk (which assumes you can make a perfect multilayer structure that maintains the properties of a single sheet). An impressive figure, but only $\approx40\%$ better than copper.
Of course, copper is about 6 times more dense than graphene, so if mass is the main concern, graphene would be a pretty good improvement. Still, we're not talking about replacing $10~\mathrm{kg}$ of copper with a few milligrams. Given how much cheaper and easier it is to make metal wires, we're not at the point of using graphene for this kind of bulk application. There are also some more mundane problems to sort out, e.g. graphene is brittle like a ceramic, which might cause mechanical issues.
These things are always hard to predict, but Im guessing that well see smaller scale electronic applications first—replacing ITO in touchscreens and the like. When we can make long runs with multiple layers, then maybe we can have the power transmission stuff, along with space elevators and other cool stuff. I hope Im around to see them!More
Its certainly an impressive number, but you have to be careful using it in comparison with other materials. Because the failure mode when conductors carry current is generally a thermal effect, the current capacity has a lot to do with how well the conductor can lose heat. A small wire has a much larger surface area to volume ratio than a large one and takes more current to heat. I expect graphene would fare better than copper of the same shape, but be careful extrapolating these numbers to macroscopic wires. For something big like a bus-bar, the current capacity may well be 5 orders smaller.More
Michael, to get an idea of how graphene is better than copper, if a copper conductor can carry 1kA continuously a graphene conductor could carry x1000 times that amount? Im trying to grasp how good is graphenes conductivity vs copper and silicon.More
I hope this amazing materials get to be more available in the near future, there are some discoveries that helps its mass production. I hope it can replace copper quite soon! When its improved of course.More
The trick with graphene is that a lot of its amazing properties only work when you have continuous perfect sheets of it, and making graphene like this is currently beyond us, for large scales anyways. It is true that graphene has very high electron mobility $\approx10^{5}~\mathrm{cm^2/Vs}$ at room temperature, which works out to on the order of $10~\mathrm{n\Omega\cdot m}$ in bulk (which assumes you can make a perfect multilayer structure that maintains the properties of a single sheet). An impressive figure, but only $\approx40\%$ better than copper.
Of course, copper is about 6 times more dense than graphene, so if mass is the main concern, graphene would be a pretty good improvement. Still, we're not talking about replacing $10~\mathrm{kg}$ of copper with a few milligrams. Given how much cheaper and easier it is to make metal wires, we're not at the point of using graphene for this kind of bulk application. There are also some more mundane problems to sort out, e.g. graphene is brittle like a ceramic, which might cause mechanical issues.
The trick with graphene is that a lot of its amazing properties only work when you have continuous perfect sheets of it, and making graphene like this is currently beyond us, for large scales anyways. It is true that graphene has very high electron mobility $\approx10^{5}~\mathrm{cm^2/Vs}$ at room temperature, which works out to on the order of $10~\mathrm{n\Omega\cdot m}$ in bulk (which assumes you can make a perfect multilayer structure that maintains the properties of a single sheet). An impressive figure, but only $\approx40\%$ better than copper.
Of course, copper is about 6 times more dense than graphene, so if mass is the main concern, graphene would be a pretty good improvement. Still, we're not talking about replacing $10~\mathrm{kg}$ of copper with a few milligrams. Given how much cheaper and easier it is to make metal wires, we're not at the point of using graphene for this kind of bulk application. There are also some more mundane problems to sort out, e.g. graphene is brittle like a ceramic, which might cause mechanical issues.
More
VOTE
VOTE
VOTE
VOTE
VOTE
VOTE