Whether PdD can fuel the future is maybe a premature question. I see PdD as a lab-rat technology to investigate the phenomenon and build a theory.
Once we have the theory, guessing from what I see already, I feel that Pd won't be required, and could be replaced by nanostructured material... other metal, alloys, graphene-like structures, why not enzyms, dirty plasmas, could be more performant. I compare the situation to the one on semiconductors before we have a theory. Germanium, lead oxydes, were the first PN/shottky junctions to works, but we evolved quickly from germanium, to silicon, then III-V cmpounds (AsGa,InAs, GaN,...) then SiGe, diamonds... and technology from junction transitors, to planar, ICs, bipolar to JFET, MOSFET, VMOS, IGBT... (I'm mixing applications) just expect the same for LENR When I was kid I was playing with LED less efficient than incandescent lamps, no blue... My firs blue les when young adult were so expensive and weak... White was pipedream for long. 2017-03-10 0:07 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>: > Someone told me those are Troy ounces, which are heavier than garden > variety ounce-ounces. Perhaps they also launch a thousand ships. See also > the millihelen: > > "A unit of measure of pulchritude, corresponding to the amount of beauty > required to launch one ship." > > > Note: this is not included in the Système International d'unités, even > though that is French. > > Okay, let me add there are several conservative assumptions in my estimate > which I did not enumerate. I am assuming there is practically no > improvement in related technology, which is silly. For example: > > Even with cold fusion central generators, we could have small ones, in 1 > MW range. They could be close to population centers, or in population > centers where there are now transformers. This would greatly reduce > transmission and distribution losses (T&D). > > It is unreasonable to assume that thermal conversion efficiency will not > improve. > > The 60% duty cycle may be too conservative. I estimated that from the > demand for electricity, which falls at night. You cannot turn off a fission > nuclear plant, but you can turn off natural gas or -- probably -- cold > fusion, so you probably would. So it would only run 16 hours a day (60% > duty cycle). However, Elon Musk is now trying to make tremendous numbers of > batteries very cheaply. If he succeeds, we can leave the cold fusion > generator on 24-hours a day and store up the electricity. The duty cycle is > close to 100% and the spreadsheet tells me that's . . . 15% of today's > electricity in Scenario 1, and 150% in Scenario 2. > > Musk is trying to do this so that we can use solar power, or wind power. > It works out better and cheaper for Pd-D cold fusion power. With Ni or Ti, > you would not need batteries at all, except for a transient increases in > demand. > > - Jed > >
