4 ms·
This is about energy transportation, nothing about energy supply. The silicon is produced using solar power in this article. You could just as easily put it in
by 3am 12y ago
This is about energy transportation, nothing about energy supply. The silicon is produced using solar power in this article. You could just as easily put it in a flywheel, put it in lithium ions, or use it to reduce sodium and burn the sodium instead.
edit: also, understatement of the century:
"restricting factor here is that the SiO2 oxidation product remains with the silicon and partially restricts its subsequent oxidation"
- jqm 12y agoExactly... From the articles comments: "It's no more unreasonable than, say, storing solar power as a highly-linked hydrocarbon liquid and then burning it in a miniaturized power plant." Putting it in a flywheel is cool but you can't practically transport that. I think the point is... there is a lot of sand. So if you only use it once maybe that's ok.
- ars 12y agoDid you understand that sand is the waste product? Not the fuel? It's much harder to burn silicon than you seem to be expecting. A miniature plant has no hope of doing it.
- jqm 12y agoYes, I understand sand is the waste product. So, it can be recycled through the same process but less efficiently (according to TFA). I'm not expecting it is hard nor easy. Nor practical either.
- ars 12y ago"but less efficiently" This is the second time you said that. Where are you getting that idea?
- dred_blue 12y ago"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 agoYes, 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 agoIf you read the article, then you failed at reading comprehension. The drop in efficiency on recycling is mentioned twice.
- ars 12y agoNo it's not. And if you think it is go ahead and copy it here.
- yohanatan 12y agoHere'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?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- jqm 12y agoThe comment I mention was by the AUTHOR of the article. Why do you have to run the process in reverse? This apparently can be done to some extent by why not discard it instead? There is plenty more where it came from. Maybe build an island or something ... IDK. "Sand is a stupid energy storage medium" Ok.. probably so.