Palladium and other platinum group metals are used in catalytic converters in automobiles and trucks. Years ago, roughly half of all palladium production was used for this purpose. A large fraction of all of energy in the world is used in automobiles and trucks. Most of that energy is wasted. Roughly 80% of it escapes as hot exhaust gas. This gas flows past the surface of the catalytic converter where it comes in contact with palladium. This reduces nitrogen compounds, breaking NO into N and O. In the next stage of the converter there is an oxidizing catalyst.
I do not know how things are today, but years ago, most converters used palladium rather than other platinum group metals. The point is, a significant fraction of all the primary heat from energy production in the world flows past palladium. I think it is roughly 10% or 12%. I will go over the numbers below. It is unclear whether palladium would be needed at all in a cold fusion powered world. We hope that nickel, titanium or some other more abundant, cheaper element can be used instead. Rossi's results indicate that may be the case. However, palladium might be useful for some applications. The power density from it is high. It might be useful for small devices, such as thermoelectric batteries in watches, hearing aids, pacemakers or cell phones. People have often claimed that there is not enough palladium in the world to produce all the energy we need with cold fusion. The first person I heard say that was Martin Fleischmann. I recall he estimated that one-third of our primary energy (heat, that is) might be produced with cold fusion. Based on the amount of palladium in catalytic converters, and the amount of heat that flows through them, I think this is a reasonable estimate. It is crude, but in the ball park. Palladium probably could not supply 100% of our energy, or ten times more than we presently consume, but on the other hand it can supply much more than 5%. I have heard other people estimate 5%. Let me list a few assumptions here, and then go over the numbers. I assume that -- * Some sort of palladium thin film or powder will be used in a practical device, with a great deal of surface area. * The total exposed surface will be increased to the limit, just as it is with a catalytic converter. * The device will be optimized to use the smallest amount of palladium possible, just as catalytic converters are today. * The temperature will be as high as possible, where the limiting factor is the melting point of palladium. We will learn how to make intense reactions on demand. A tiny but intense heat source would not be safe for a hearing aid battery, but it might work for a cell phone. Consumer electronics such as cell phones and laptop computers have components that get quite hot to the touch. In short, a cold fusion cell is similar in many ways to a catalytic converter. Many of the engineering problems that have been solved in catalytic converters will apply to cold fusion. The upper limit of heat per gram of palladium that a catalytic converter can survive is probably about the same as the upper limit of heat production from a cold fusion cell per gram of palladium. The limit will be defined by materials and engineering, not the nuclear physics of cold fusion. With cold fusion, you can drive the temperature high enough to vaporize the metal, as Fleischmann and Pons inadvertently demonstrated. Cold fusion researchers should be talking to the engineers who design catalytic converters. Here are other important points: * Only about half of palladium is use for catalytic converters. * After cold fusion replaces other energy sources, we will not need any more catalytic converters. The whole supply of palladium will be freed up for cold fusion -- if we need it. * If the palladium transmutes into other elements we will lose it, but if that can be prevented, we can probably recycle a larger fraction of palladium that we do with converters. So the total amount available will increase. * Cold fusion itself will lower the cost of extraction and recycling of palladium, as well as all other materials. It will bootstrap up the supply of its own catalyst and fuel (heavy water). * The operating conditions inside a cold fusion cell are likely to be more benign than inside a catalytic converter. There will not be gale force winds of toxic gas blasting past the surface. The palladium will not sublime and get blown out into the surroundings, and thereby lost. It will stay inside the cell until the day it is recycled. (Assuming it does not transmute, as I said.) * The palladium sitting in a catalytic converted is idle most hours of the day. The car is parked, the motor is off. If palladium is used as a primary energy source, and no other metal can be used, most of the palladium would end up in central generators where it is used many hours of the day. The duty cycle is longer. Now, let me go over the basis of my estimate that ~10% of the world's primary heat production goes past a palladium surface. For the U.S. only, total energy flow is 97 quads total, with 27 quads in transportation. http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/diagram1.cfm Petroleum produces 35 quads. Oil is seldom used for power generation or other applications anymore. 93% of transportation is oil-based as shown here: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pecss_diagram.cfm Some fraction of this is in aviation, and some in railroads. I don't recall how much, but most of it is in cars and trucks. Say it is 80%. That would be 22 quads. 4.3 quads of that goes into vehicle propulsion and the other 18 quads go into hot gas -- that is, waste heat. So that is roughly 18% of all energy in the U.S. Palladium is used in catalytic converters worldwide, not just in the U.S. Other countries do not devote such a large fraction of their energy to automotive transportation. Worldwide, I suppose palladium comes in contact with perhaps 10 to 12% of all the primary heat from energy production. Most energy comes from heat engines, where the primary source is combustion or nuclear heat. Most of this ends up as waste heat. Some energy from hydroelectricity, wind or photovoltaic chips, where waste heat is not accounted for. A quad of photovoltaic electricity shown in these graphs does not call for 3 quads heat from coal or uranium fission. To produce all energy from cold fusion, all energy would start from cold fusion heat, so there would be more waste heat than we now account for. (Perhaps not more than we actually produce, but more than the EIA keeps track of in these graphs.) Some cold fusion heat would be used directly, and some converted with heat engines into vehicle propulsion or electricity. The point is, with cold fusion, the U.S. needs more than 97 quads of primary energy. I estimate about 120 quads, so at best, the palladium now used in catalytic converters might produce about 15% of our energy. Here is the EIA "Electricity flow" graph, showing total U.S. production of electricity and waste heat: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec8_3.pdf As you see, 40 quads are used to generate electricity, converting to 15 quads Gross Generation (38%) and 25 quads of Conversion Losses (63%). There are ~2 quads of additional downstream losses from Plant Use and T&D (transmission and distribution). The 5 quads of Renewable Energy coming into the system does not have any conversion losses (no waste heat or wasted wind or photons) even though these things are not 100% efficient, obviously. In short, with cold fusion, you would need another 10 quads for electricity. I figure you might need 10 more quads for various other energy systems, for reasons beyond the scope of the discussion. So I came up with ~120 quads primary energy total. Palladium can produce 15% of that . . . But wait! Only about half of palladium is used in converters, and much of that cannot be recycled. As I said, the supply is likely to increase. Add in a longer duty cycle, and it would not be out of the question for palladium to produce approximately 30% instead of 15%. That would be in line with Fleischmann's estimate. - Jed
