sci.energy

On Sep 3, 7:42 am, Eeyore
wrote:
> BradGuth wrote:
> > Eeyore
>
> > > He believes science means you can get 'free' h202.
>
> > Until just now, I never once stipulated "free h2o2".
>
> You might as well have.
>
> Your h2o2 ideas are plain STUPID !
>
> You'd be better off with a cylinder of pure oxygen.

That too might become a good enough idea, except for the required
tankage and the equally nasty if not worse off what-ifs. BTW, it also
takes energy in order to produce, inventory and distribute pure O2,
though less spendy amounts of energy than h2o2.

In addition to whatever renewable energy that's in surplus which can
be diverted into making the likes of LH2, LOx and h2o2 (you pick),
we're currently pillaging and raping mother Earth's oceans for a nifty
tally of extracting 100 million tonnes/year of seafood (that's not
including global sport fishing or subsistence fishing), and since
we've created such a good number and ever expanding volumes of ocean
dead zones, whereas such I was wondering how much biofuel could be
made from extracting a billion tonnes worth of jellyfish.
- Brad Guth