Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source
Basta, signore! The manometer says- no obstacle, steam is condensed. peter On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Jed Rothwellwrote: > Peter Gluck wrote: > > Who 'delivers' the 4 atm? >> > > Back pressure from the radiator. When you force a fluid through a radiator > (or heat exchanger) this raises the pressure of the fluid. It does not take > much pressure to raise the boiling point of water above 103°C. See: > > https://durathermfluids.com/pdf/techpapers/pressure-boiling-point.pdf > > Contamination will also raise the boiling point. This water was reportedly > dirty. > > > >> You really seem to be in trance. >> OK, tell it is fake but do not give pseudo-technical explanations. >> > > The fact that pressure raises the boiling point is not psuedo-technical. > This has been common knowledge for centuries. > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source
Peter Gluckwrote: Who 'delivers' the 4 atm? > Back pressure from the radiator. When you force a fluid through a radiator (or heat exchanger) this raises the pressure of the fluid. It does not take much pressure to raise the boiling point of water above 103°C. See: https://durathermfluids.com/pdf/techpapers/pressure-boiling-point.pdf Contamination will also raise the boiling point. This water was reportedly dirty. > You really seem to be in trance. > OK, tell it is fake but do not give pseudo-technical explanations. > The fact that pressure raises the boiling point is not psuedo-technical. This has been common knowledge for centuries. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source
Who 'delivers' the 4 atm? You really seem to be in trance. OK, tell it is fake but do not give pseudo-technical explanations. peter PS I have finished this uselesss discussion, I stil prefer logic. On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Jed Rothwellwrote: > Peter Gluck wrote: > > >> Your last variant re Rossi's fake data was this; Exactly zero excess >> heat, watermeter lying 4 Times more flow 103 C fluid water not trace of >> steam. >> > > At 4 atm 103°C water is liquid without a trace of steam. 4 atm is not > much. The back pressure from the radiator was more than this. > > If Rossi has valid data showing real excess heat, why did he publish > nonsense fake data showing he is a crude fraud? And why didn't he > demonstrate this heat to I.H. during the year he worked in North Carolina. > They would have paid him $89 million. > > Rossi's own data, that he uploaded in this court case, proves he is a > fraud. That's all there is to it. > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source
Peter Gluckwrote: > Your last variant re Rossi's fake data was this; Exactly zero excess heat, > watermeter lying 4 Times more flow 103 C fluid water not trace of steam. > At 4 atm 103°C water is liquid without a trace of steam. 4 atm is not much. The back pressure from the radiator was more than this. If Rossi has valid data showing real excess heat, why did he publish nonsense fake data showing he is a crude fraud? And why didn't he demonstrate this heat to I.H. during the year he worked in North Carolina. They would have paid him $89 million. Rossi's own data, that he uploaded in this court case, proves he is a fraud. That's all there is to it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source
Excellent, from now on, if I see ads for investing in PD D I will know they are not by you. As regarding NiH we willl see. I suppose you have called main author Nakamura from NISSAN and asked him what he thinks about NiH. Your last variant re Rossi's fake data was this; Exactly zero excess heat, watermeter lying 4 Times more flow 103 C fluid water not trace of steam. Not exactly a solid mental construct but you MUST do such things. Your problem or your prvilege. Steam pipe still 40 mm Murray style? Watermeter working fractionary full/empty? As an partial aside are you familiar with Edwrd de Bono thinking methods/ peter On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Jed Rothwellwrote: > Peter Gluck wrote: > > >> you ignore with easiness the reproducibility problem >> > > I did not ignore it. I stated clearly that this is predicated on > controlling the reaction. I said "Assumption. With Pd-D 200 W/g can be > achieved, at any desired temperature up to the melting point of Pd." If > that cannot be done, Pd-D cannot be commercialized. > > > >> Cna you tell me the rtae of success NOW say at >> SKINR, ENEA, Coolescence and others? >> > > These places have not succeeded. That is why there are no commercial cold > fusion devices. No one can control Ti or Ni cold fusion either. Rossi > claims that he can, but that is not true. If he could, he would not have > put fake data in the spreadsheets, and I.H. would have paid him $89 million. > > > >> Re the ERv report it has 60 pages . . . >> > > I do not think so. > > > >> , you have seen 352 daily reports >> not 8448 hourly ones and not the results for 506880 minutes (approx) >> > > I do not think there are any hourly reports, but if there are, and if they > agree with the daily reports, they are also fake. You cannot have a daily > summary showing fake data which is based on hourly data that is real. The > hourly data would have to show pressure of 0.0 bar, which is impossible, > and it would have to show temperatures that average (or peak) at the exact > same temperature to the nearest tenth degree every day for weeks. That's > impossible. It is preposterous. > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source
Peter Gluckwrote: > you ignore with easiness the reproducibility problem > I did not ignore it. I stated clearly that this is predicated on controlling the reaction. I said "Assumption. With Pd-D 200 W/g can be achieved, at any desired temperature up to the melting point of Pd." If that cannot be done, Pd-D cannot be commercialized. > Cna you tell me the rtae of success NOW say at > SKINR, ENEA, Coolescence and others? > These places have not succeeded. That is why there are no commercial cold fusion devices. No one can control Ti or Ni cold fusion either. Rossi claims that he can, but that is not true. If he could, he would not have put fake data in the spreadsheets, and I.H. would have paid him $89 million. > Re the ERv report it has 60 pages . . . > I do not think so. > , you have seen 352 daily reports > not 8448 hourly ones and not the results for 506880 minutes (approx) > I do not think there are any hourly reports, but if there are, and if they agree with the daily reports, they are also fake. You cannot have a daily summary showing fake data which is based on hourly data that is real. The hourly data would have to show pressure of 0.0 bar, which is impossible, and it would have to show temperatures that average (or peak) at the exact same temperature to the nearest tenth degree every day for weeks. That's impossible. It is preposterous. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source
Jed, you ignore with easiness the reproducibility problem Cna you tell me the rtae of success NOW say at SKINR, ENEA, Coolescence and others? Re the ERv report it has 60 pages, you have seen 352 daily reports not 8448 hourly ones and not the results for 506880 minutes (approx) When the litigation story will be over and i am still here, I will organize a course of Technology Awakening for people now on the level of Exhibit 5 of IH. peter On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Jed Rothwellwrote: > Peter Gluck wrote: > > mre cells with death after (no) heat. >> > > I do not know what this sentence means. Perhaps you are saying that Pd-D > does not produce heat after death. That's incorrect. It does. There is no > input power, so the COP is infinite. > > > >> probably not true for Ti- very abundent element have worked with it. For >> CF remeber Scaramuzzi and our friend Chino has done a lot with Ti. >> Au is Au and has it s place in electromivvcs. >> So please do not mention PD based commercial energy sources. >> > > You have not given any technical or practical reason why Pd-D cannot be > commercialized. If these other metals work, there would be no reason to use > Pd. But if they do not, and Pd is the only choice, it can produce a > significant fraction of our energy. Fleischmann was correct about that, and > you are wrong. > > > >> Re the Exh 1, surely i have it and what you are missing is the hourly and >> the recorded data which will make you smarter and will determine you to not >> pontificate. >> > > As far as I know, there is no hourly data. > > Anyone can see that Penon and Rossi stuffed imaginary numbers into these > spreadsheets. One-hour data that agrees with this would also be imaginary. > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source
Peter Gluckwrote: mre cells with death after (no) heat. > I do not know what this sentence means. Perhaps you are saying that Pd-D does not produce heat after death. That's incorrect. It does. There is no input power, so the COP is infinite. > probably not true for Ti- very abundent element have worked with it. For > CF remeber Scaramuzzi and our friend Chino has done a lot with Ti. > Au is Au and has it s place in electromivvcs. > So please do not mention PD based commercial energy sources. > You have not given any technical or practical reason why Pd-D cannot be commercialized. If these other metals work, there would be no reason to use Pd. But if they do not, and Pd is the only choice, it can produce a significant fraction of our energy. Fleischmann was correct about that, and you are wrong. > Re the Exh 1, surely i have it and what you are missing is the hourly and > the recorded data which will make you smarter and will determine you to not > pontificate. > As far as I know, there is no hourly data. Anyone can see that Penon and Rossi stuffed imaginary numbers into these spreadsheets. One-hour data that agrees with this would also be imaginary. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source
mre cells with death after (no) heat. probably not true for Ti- very abundent element have worked with it. For CF remeber Scaramuzzi and our friend Chino has done a lot with Ti. Au is Au and has it s place in electromivvcs. So please do not mention PD based commercial energy sources. Re the Exh 1, surely i have it and what you are missing is the hourly and the recorded data which will make you smarter and will determine you to not pontificate. good night, peter On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Jed Rothwellwrote: > Peter Gluck wrote: > > b) The heavy water gives D2 with a consume of energy good COP is >> say 1.30 to be optimist . . . >> > > There have been many cells with heat after death for long periods. That is > a COP of infinity. Once the reaction is understood and controlled, I am > confident a low COP will be possible. > > > >> , so you will consume 780 W (power) for getting 100 w power= imagine >> your generator s a huge F Cell- or do you have different idea? >> > > F achieved much better COPs than this. > > > >> For any rational human being it is clear the PdD CF/LENR in its actual >> stage of development cannot be a commercial energy source. >> > > Of course! That is equally true of Ti, Au and Ni. It isn't even clear that > Ni cold fusion exists. > > > >> You could learn a lot from the 1MW 1year test of Andrea Rossi. Real or >> not, it is instructive. >> > > You can learn all you need to know from Rossi's data. It is fake. If you > can't see that, you have lost all ability to analyze experimental data. The > data is here, uploaded by Rossi himself: > > http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/ > 01/0128.1_Exhibit_1.pdf > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source
Peter Gluckwrote: b) The heavy water gives D2 with a consume of energy good COP is > say 1.30 to be optimist . . . > There have been many cells with heat after death for long periods. That is a COP of infinity. Once the reaction is understood and controlled, I am confident a low COP will be possible. > , so you will consume 780 W (power) for getting 100 w power= imagine your > generator s a huge F Cell- or do you have different idea? > F achieved much better COPs than this. > For any rational human being it is clear the PdD CF/LENR in its actual > stage of development cannot be a commercial energy source. > Of course! That is equally true of Ti, Au and Ni. It isn't even clear that Ni cold fusion exists. > You could learn a lot from the 1MW 1year test of Andrea Rossi. Real or > not, it is instructive. > You can learn all you need to know from Rossi's data. It is fake. If you can't see that, you have lost all ability to analyze experimental data. The data is here, uploaded by Rossi himself: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0128.1_Exhibit_1.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source
Jed You forget a few details: a) Your first and probably most correct;evaluation was 300 W/cc palladium and thi is 25 W/g; b) The heavy water gives D2 with a consume of energy good COP is say 1.30 to be optimist, so you will consume 780 W (power) for getting 100 w power= imagine your generator s a huge F Cell- or do you have different idea? For any rational human being it is clear the PdD CF/LENR in its actual stage of development cannot be a commercial energy source. You could learn a lot from the 1MW 1year test of Andrea Rossi. Real or not, it is instructive. peter On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Jed Rothwellwrote: > Here is a brief analysis of the cost of a 1 MW palladium-based generator -- > > I estimate that palladium can produce ~200 W/g, so you would need 5 kg. > This costs $119,000 at today's prices. An EPRI study shows that a > conventional 1 MW generator costs $267,000, so this would not cost much > more than a conventional generator, and it would be far cheaper than a 1 MW > wind turbine. With a conventional generator, over the life of the machine, > the fuel costs more than the machine. With cold fusion, the fuel cost would > negligible, so lifetime costs would be far lower. > > The generator portion of 1 MW wind turbine costs about the same as a 1 MW > combustion generator, but the tower costs $1.3 million. Yet wind is > competitive with combustion generators because the fuel is free -- wind > costs nothing. With cold fusion, the extra $119,000 you pay for palladium > is far less than the cost of the wind turbine tower. > > Regarding fuel costs, high purity heavy water today costs ~$1000/kg. It > will be much cheaper with cold fusion, because most of that cost is for the > energy used to separate heavy water from ordinary water. 1 kg of heavy > water produces 69 million megajoules of heat. A 1 MW reactor consumes 3 MJ > of heat per second, so that's 23 million seconds, or 266 days, or $3.76 per > day. Actually, it would be far cheaper because heavy water will be cheaper, > as I said. > > The EPRI generator data is on p. 2-5 here: > > http://www.publicpower.org/files/deed/finalreportcostsofutilitydistr > ibutedgenerators.pdf > > - Jed > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source
Here is a brief analysis of the cost of a 1 MW palladium-based generator -- I estimate that palladium can produce ~200 W/g, so you would need 5 kg. This costs $119,000 at today's prices. An EPRI study shows that a conventional 1 MW generator costs $267,000, so this would not cost much more than a conventional generator, and it would be far cheaper than a 1 MW wind turbine. With a conventional generator, over the life of the machine, the fuel costs more than the machine. With cold fusion, the fuel cost would negligible, so lifetime costs would be far lower. The generator portion of 1 MW wind turbine costs about the same as a 1 MW combustion generator, but the tower costs $1.3 million. Yet wind is competitive with combustion generators because the fuel is free -- wind costs nothing. With cold fusion, the extra $119,000 you pay for palladium is far less than the cost of the wind turbine tower. Regarding fuel costs, high purity heavy water today costs ~$1000/kg. It will be much cheaper with cold fusion, because most of that cost is for the energy used to separate heavy water from ordinary water. 1 kg of heavy water produces 69 million megajoules of heat. A 1 MW reactor consumes 3 MJ of heat per second, so that's 23 million seconds, or 266 days, or $3.76 per day. Actually, it would be far cheaper because heavy water will be cheaper, as I said. The EPRI generator data is on p. 2-5 here: http://www.publicpower.org/files/deed/finalreportcostsofutilitydistributedgenerators.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source
Alain Sepedawrote: 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. > Yup. > 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... > I hope that Pd will not be required. Just in case it is the only thing that works, I decided to run the numbers to see whether it could produce a significant fraction of world energy. I think it can. As I said, Ni or Ti would be a lot better because you could put them in all machines, including low-duty cycle things like automobiles, or flashlights. "Low-duty cycle" means the automobile sits in the parking lot most hours of the day. Really, it is a waste of equipment. Someone wrote that a computer hard disk and computer RAM have the lowest duty cycle of any common technology, and they are the biggest waste of resources. The disk is powered up and spinning, but most of it is not accessed for years, or never accessed. That is an interesting perspective. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source
Jones Beenewrote: > This is accurate insight with the proviso that palladium could still be > required, even with graphene, but possibly optimized as much as twenty-fold. > I think that is probably true. But I kind of took that into account when I plugged the power density of 200 W/g for Pd into the spreadsheet. For bulk Pd, ~50 W/g may be close to the limit. I plugged in 200 W, admittedly arbitrarily, because I figure the Pd could be in small spots that are quickly cooled by the surrounding material. I met a fellow who was trying to put Pd spots on synthetic diamond. Diamond is the best heat sink, he claimed. For a uranium oxide fuel pellet, 25 W/g is the limit, I think. The zirconium tubes in pressurized water cannot stand up to much higher temperatures. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source
I've long been an advocate of mining the planet Mercury (if one can get around the obvious difficulties of such an extreme environment on the surface). Early in the planet's history some unknown cataclysm (possibly similar to that which resulted in the formation of our own moon) blasted off most of the rocky outer crust, leaving the core intact, which means its easier to reach than those of the other rocky planets. The amount of palladium there (not to mention all the other goodies) should tide us over for the foreseeable future.Jess Tauber
Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source
Alain Sepeda wrote: 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. This is accurate insight with the proviso that palladium could still be required, even with graphene, but possibly optimized as much as twenty-fold. One major problem is that there is no systematic plan to integrate past results and move forward in an optimized and well-funded way. IH could have been that vehicle, had Rossigate not happened. For instance there is good evidence that deuterium loading correlates with excess heat, and actual proof that an alloy of 95% nickel and 5% palladium loads more deuterium than palladium alone (from Ahern's Arata replication). Yet few are aware of this detail - and no supplier offers the optimized 95/5 alloy for purchase. I would bet that no one in the field is currently using this finding. In the case of an alloy containing only a small Pd percentage, the rarity and high cost of palladium is marginalized.
Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source
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: > 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). > > 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 > >
Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source
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). 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
[Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source
Palladium is expensive and rare. If it turns out we can only generate cold fusion energy from palladium, and not some other metal such as nickel or titanium, this will probably limit the use of cold fusion to things like central generators which have a high duty cycle, making maximum use of the metal. However, palladium is not so rare that a Pd-D energy source would make only minimal contributions to overall energy production. It could generate more than coal, or natural gas, or any other single source today. Martin Fleischmann once estimated that it could produce about one-third to half of all electricity. I believe that is reasonable. In other words, Ni or Ti would make cold fusion cheap and ubiquitous, but even with Pd we could supply a large fraction of today's energy, and it would be cheaper than any other energy source. Here are three very rough estimates, with different assumptions. CONSERVATIVE The palladium supply in 2015 was 6.7 million ounces mined, 2.6 million from "secondary recovery" (recycling). That is 190 million grams mined, 74 million recycled. http://www.napalladium.com/palladium/supply-and-demand/default.aspx Assumptions No increase in production despite increased demand. Production from mines continues to be ~190 million grams per year, indefinitely. I think this is unrealistic. When demand increases, more mines are opened and extraction techniques improve. The main use of Pd today is in catalytic converters. Assume that eventually, all cars are electric and no more use of Pd is needed for catalytic converters; nearly all Pd used for cold fusion. No transmutation of Pd. The Pd is in sealed cells, so little is lost. 95% is recycled; 5% lost. This means that after 20 years, annual losses would equal production and the supply would not increase. The total supply would then be 3.8 billion grams. (I ignore today's existing stocks.) Additional assumptions regarding energy production With Pd-D 200 W/g can be achieved, at any desired temperature up to the melting point of Pd. I believe the current record is 25 W/g, which is approximately the same power density as a uranium oxide fuel pellet in a conventional reactor. See "Power density is compared by volume or by surface area:" http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618 (Note that Pd weights 14 g/cm^3.) I think higher power density might be possible with nanoparticle Pd. The Pd would mainly be used for applications with a high duty cycle, such as centralized electric power generation, railroad locomotives, and pacemakers. (Pacemakers have very low power but they must maintain a 100% duty cycle or the patient may die.) Assume the Pd is active 60% of the time. With 3.8 billion g, that comes to 0.456 TW thermal output. Electricity requires 5 TW thermal to produce 2.3 TW electricity. Assume thermal conversion efficiency does not improve. In this case, 0.456 TW would produce 9% of electricity. OPTIMISTIC ESTIMATE Cold fusion would make Pd quite valuable, so let us assume production doubles to 380 million grams. Lead-acid batteries resemble cold fusion cells in that they are sealed and none of the metal is used up or lost. Nearly 100% of the lead is recycled. Assume that only 1% of Pd is lost every year, because most Pd generators are large, central units that are carefully recycled. After 100 years we would have 37.6 billion grams. http://www.ila-lead.org/lead-facts/lead-recycling Assume no increase in the thermal efficiency of conversion, and the same 200 W/g and 60% duty cycle. Total thermal output is then 4.5 TW which produces 90% of today’s electricity. However, there is no doubt demand will grow, so perhaps it would be about half of total electricity. HIGHLY OPTIMISTIC ESTIMATE Assume Pd can be extracted from seawater, or from mining asteroids. Asteroids are 80% iron and “20% a mixture of nickel, iridium, palladium, platinum, gold, magnesium and other precious metals such as osmium, ruthenium and rhodium.” Quote: “The platinum group metals are some of the most rare and useful elements on Earth. According to Planetary Resources, a company that hopes to mine asteroids in space, those metals exist in such high concentrations on asteroids that a single 500-meter platinum-rich asteroid can contain more platinum group metals than have ever been mined on Earth throughout human history.” This would give us enough Pd to produce all of the energy on earth and in the solar system. http://www.universetoday.com/37425/what-are-asteroids-made-of/ - Jed