From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Gold - future Auto Catalyst
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:19:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.223502.27207@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.193403.16355@news.clarkson.edu>
>rajat@sunny3.che.clarkson.edu (Rajat Kapoor,P303,2124) writes:
>>One of the unfortunate fallouts, IMHO, of the above reaction is that the
>>Japanese plan to use Au as one of the active materials for catalytic
>>convertors. 
>[...]
>>Gold has a charm like no other metal.
>>Putting this in ceramic monoliths would make it practically irrecoverable.
>>
>>By the same count, I don't like the idea of Gold being used as a
>>filler material for teeth.  Unless it is removed after death, that gold
>>would be taken off "circulation".
>>
>>In either of the above cases the quantity is substantial if numbers
>>are taken into account.
>>
>>Next on the list : Gold as conductor for IC's.
>
>     At least in this last application, the gold is recoverable.  In
>fact, there are companies in operation today whose sole purpose is to
>recover gold from circuit boards.  I will certainly agree that, due to
>human superstition, it's not likely we'll be recovering gold from
>graveyards anytime soon.  However, you shouldn't underestimate our
>ability to get around difficult extractive problems when necessary:  If
>ever we needed it again, we would find a way to get it out of catalytic
>converters.

It isn't difficult to get the gold out of the converter, it is hard to 
collect all those converters from dumps, junk yards, ditches and
quarries from around the world that is so hard. It is simply not profitable
to run around digging converters out of the junk yard to extract a couple
milligrams of gold from it.

>     These observations are however not the reason I am posting.  I would
>like to know if anyone else thinks that Rajat's posting is silly.

On the contrary, his post makes *much* sense. Just like many people think
that beef comes from grocery stores, so too do people think that metal
resources come from Alcoa.  The world does *not* have an infinite supply 
of *any* metal that is able to be gotten by man. Think about it, while 
there is certainly a *lot* of metal out there, *very* little of it is 
accesible to use because it is either too deep or too dispersed. The amount
of energy that goes into refining metals is *phenomenal*.  Why keep mining
metals at a *huge* energy costs, then dispersing them so we can't get 
them again? Sure, we can go to the dumps and hire vagrants to comb the
years of garbage scouring for metals, then refining them, but if we'd
just realize that these metals were gotten at a large cost to begin with,
we might consider being more careful with the metals we've got. What a
concept.

Heck, we're more responsible about recycling Aluminum than we are gold.

>(I
>tried to find a more tactful term, but I couldn't.)  First of all, I
>haven't heard that there is anything even remotely resembling a gold
>supply crisis. 

Great logic.  He's not silly, you're naive.

Many of the problems we currently face in our world result from the fact
that we have lousy foresight. I'll bet I could go into the library and
dig out a newpaper that says, "I haven't heard that there is anything 
even remotely resembling a carrier pigeon crisis."

Right. There *wasn't*.

You're sitting on a big boat, stranded at sea, with a *whole* bunch of 
food and fresh water in it. You're not worried about being rescued soon
because you can survive on what you've got in stores. So, you find you
can gorge yourself on caviar, champagne, smoked salmon etc. But one
day you find that half the containers were broken, cracked or rusted through.
Another percentage had phenylalanine in the product (you're phenylketonuric)
and the rest was eaten by rats.

This is when you say "shoot. I wish my foresight was 20-20"

But then it's too late, and you *know* you'd have never believed the 
sign on the galley wall that says "plan ahead, mate, the hardest storms
hit after blue sky."

Normally, I wouldn't care because, hey, it's your boat! But listen! I'm
on this boat too you landlubber!

>Secondly, gold makes pretty jewelry, but so what?  I
>would rather have it play a useful technological role than see it wind
>up as a useless ornament.  Am I the only one with this sort of opinion?

I have no idea, but you are clearly ignorant of the properties of gold.
It is precisely that it is so valuable in so many areas *besides* and 
including jewelry (which is a very real sink for the stuff) that we should
consider not being so foolish with it as a resource. It makes a great
catalyst. I'm using it in an experiment right now! It makes an excellent
thin film coating for protecting against radiation. It makes excellent
electrical contacts where good connections are a matter of life and 
death (airplanes, space shuttles, etc). It even makes a good athritis
medication! The list goes on and on. Its high density , ductility
and low oxidation potential make it the ideal material for a *huge* number
of applications.

Good grief. With something with so many virtues, I agree wholheartedly
with  Rajat. Unfortunately, there are enough people who share your
attitude out there that the rest of us, and our future generations,
will have to make do with less precious resources. And this is hardly
a chicken little story, it is simple math.

-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: sci.chem