5 ms·

"This inert silicon dioxide might be recycled back to a silicon smelter or used locally in land fill." Edited: "A restricting factor here is that the SiO2 oxid

"This inert silicon dioxide might be recycled back to a silicon smelter or used locally in land fill." Edited: "A restricting factor here is that the SiO2 oxidation product remains with the silicon and partially restricts its subsequent oxidation." did you even read the article?

ars 12y ago
Yes, I read the article. And in what way does what you wrote imply "less efficient" on reuse? To reply to your edit: > "A restricting factor here is that the SiO2 oxidation product remains with the silicon and partially restricts its subsequent oxidation." Do you even understand what you posted here? I really don't think you do. This is not "on reuse" this is a problem on the first use. And it's such a big problem that silicon is unlikely to ever actually be used this way.
- yohanatan 12y ago
  If you read the article, then you failed at reading comprehension. The drop in efficiency on recycling is mentioned twice.
  - ars 12y ago
    No it's not. And if you think it is go ahead and copy it here.
    - yohanatan 12y ago
      Here's one of them: "The only waste product from silicon power stations would be large amounts of solid silicon-dioxide “ash” but this could be recycled back to the smelters to be reduced to silicon again." So, if ash is a 'waste product' then it cannot be produced with 100% efficiency as the 'non-waste' is the goal of the process and not the 'waste' itself. Also, if you take that 'waste' and 'recycle it back to smelters', another round of inefficiency is introduced (as no physical process is 100% efficient). Is there something wrong with that reasoning?
  - throwaway5752 12y ago
    No offense, but you're not talking about their use of the word "reduction" are you?
    - yohanatan 12y ago
      Not exactly. See the reasoning here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7814908 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7814908

ars 12y ago

Yes, I read the article. And in what way does what you wrote imply "less efficient" on reuse? To reply to your edit: > "A restricting factor here is that the SiO2 oxidation product remains with the silicon and partially restricts its subsequent oxidation." Do you even understand what you posted here? I really don't think you do. This is not "on reuse" this is a problem on the first use. And it's such a big problem that silicon is unlikely to ever actually be used this way.

yohanatan 12y ago
If you read the article, then you failed at reading comprehension. The drop in efficiency on recycling is mentioned twice.
- ars 12y ago
  No it's not. And if you think it is go ahead and copy it here.
  - yohanatan 12y ago
    Here's one of them: "The only waste product from silicon power stations would be large amounts of solid silicon-dioxide “ash” but this could be recycled back to the smelters to be reduced to silicon again." So, if ash is a 'waste product' then it cannot be produced with 100% efficiency as the 'non-waste' is the goal of the process and not the 'waste' itself. Also, if you take that 'waste' and 'recycle it back to smelters', another round of inefficiency is introduced (as no physical process is 100% efficient). Is there something wrong with that reasoning?
- throwaway5752 12y ago
  No offense, but you're not talking about their use of the word "reduction" are you?
  - yohanatan 12y ago
    Not exactly. See the reasoning here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7814908 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7814908