> When energy flows from one and of a wire made from a superconductor to the other end, then no heat is produced? Where did the energy go then?
Just to make an analogue. Imagine that you're stitched some reactive engine to some cart without wheels and trying to move it. Lots of friction, so lots of energy will convert to heat. That's basically insulator. Need a lot of energy to go through it.
Now you add wheels to the cart. Well, it moves quickly now. Though still you have some friction and some heat. That's conductor.
Next: you add wings and don't need wheels after lift-off. Only air friction. Still some energy converts to heat, but speed and efficiency much higher. That's copper, one of the best conductors.
Now remove air, you're in the space. Well, no friction, you can accelerate as much as you want. So this is superconductor in a nutshell.
There's nothing fundamental about resistance. Yes, most elements are not superconductors, but some are superconductors and they require not very exotic conditions. So there's nothing groundbreaking about inventing room-temperature superconductors, physics won't be rewritten because of that. But lots of practical applications, of course, so it's incredible useful invention if true.
I don't know how much CPU efficiency can we squeeze theoretically. There will be losses, even if everything is superconducting. Radio waves, for example. And it's not clear if it's possible to make everything superconducting.