3 ms·

"It's not CO2 neutral, positive or negative. It has nothing whatsoever to do with CO2." If it doesn't involve CO2, it is, by definition, CO2 neutral. As in, it

by jqm 12y ago

"It's not CO2 neutral, positive or negative. It has nothing whatsoever to do with CO2." If it doesn't involve CO2, it is, by definition, CO2 neutral. As in, it doesn't produce CO2 (unlike fossil fuels). Yes, I realize it is an energy carrier (in concept). The media is less useful on subsequent uses. The sun is the source of the energy. Which I suppose makes you technically correct. As far as I know, the sun isn't "renewable".

ars 12y ago
> If it doesn't involve CO2, it is, by definition, CO2 neutral. No, CO2 neutral is an energy source that does not release any extra CO2 into the air (like growing a plant and burning it). (CO2 negative removes CO2 from the air.) This is not an energy source, the CO2 measure of this depends only on the source. The silicon is completely irrelevant to that. > The media is less useful on subsequent uses. And that's the 3rd time you've said that, and I still have no idea where you are getting this erroneous concept. > The sun is the source of the energy. Which I suppose makes you technically correct. As far as I know, the sun isn't "renewable". No, the sun is not the source of the energy. This proposal does not include an energy source. I keep telling you that, but you don't seem to get it. This is an energy carrier. There is no energy source involved here. (And you can ignore the words "solar panel" in the article. You can use a solar panel for anything, it has absolutely nothing to do with this.)
- dred_blue 12y ago
  Yes, the sun is absolutely the energy source. The silicon/sand is the carrier. Why did I mention recycling the media? It's mentioned in the article. Twice in fact. Read the article.
  - ars 12y ago
    > Yes, the sun is absolutely the energy source. The sun can also be an energy source to make syn-gas (to make synthetic gasoline for cars), or charge a battery, or make hydrogen, or pump water uphill. What does that have to do with silicon as a carrier? Absolutely nothing. You can also make silicon if you burn some coal. The sun is completely irrelevant. > Why did I mention recycling the media? It's mentioned in the article. Twice in fact. Just because it's in an article doesn't make it correct. This article is really bad. It has just enough truth to make it seem plausible. The crust of this entire planet is made of silicon, it's not something that needs recycling anyway.
    - coldtea 12y ago
      >The sun can also be an energy source to make syn-gas (to make synthetic gasoline for cars), or charge a battery, or make hydrogen, or pump water uphill. What does that have to do with silicon as a carrier? It has to do with using the sun to produce the energy that the "carrier" will carry. Nobody said the Sun only has this particular application -- just that is one more application of Solar energy (on sand, and with using silicon as a carrier). >Just because it's in an article doesn't make it correct. This article is really bad. It has just enough truth to make it seem plausible. Seems like someone didn't read it.
      - ars 12y ago
        Everyone keeps accusing me of not reading the article - but I did. The whole thing (despite eye rolls the entire time). > just that is one more application of Solar energy (on sand, and with using silicon as a carrier). You seem to have gotten lost in the argument here. I'm objecting to claiming that using by silicon somehow we reduce CO2 emissions. We don't. Silicon has nothing to do with it. Sure by using the sun we reduce CO2 - but that's orthogonal to using silicon. If you want to talk about using silicon as a load balancer, or a kind of rechargeable battery, then sure it's an interesting idea. But don't start claiming it's some sort of super clean fuel or something like that because it's not.

by jqm 12y ago

ars 12y ago

> If it doesn't involve CO2, it is, by definition, CO2 neutral. No, CO2 neutral is an energy source that does not release any extra CO2 into the air (like growing a plant and burning it). (CO2 negative removes CO2 from the air.) This is not an energy source, the CO2 measure of this depends only on the source. The silicon is completely irrelevant to that. > The media is less useful on subsequent uses. And that's the 3rd time you've said that, and I still have no idea where you are getting this erroneous concept. > The sun is the source of the energy. Which I suppose makes you technically correct. As far as I know, the sun isn't "renewable". No, the sun is not the source of the energy. This proposal does not include an energy source. I keep telling you that, but you don't seem to get it. This is an energy carrier. There is no energy source involved here. (And you can ignore the words "solar panel" in the article. You can use a solar panel for anything, it has absolutely nothing to do with this.)

dred_blue 12y ago
Yes, the sun is absolutely the energy source. The silicon/sand is the carrier. Why did I mention recycling the media? It's mentioned in the article. Twice in fact. Read the article.
- ars 12y ago
  > Yes, the sun is absolutely the energy source. The sun can also be an energy source to make syn-gas (to make synthetic gasoline for cars), or charge a battery, or make hydrogen, or pump water uphill. What does that have to do with silicon as a carrier? Absolutely nothing. You can also make silicon if you burn some coal. The sun is completely irrelevant. > Why did I mention recycling the media? It's mentioned in the article. Twice in fact. Just because it's in an article doesn't make it correct. This article is really bad. It has just enough truth to make it seem plausible. The crust of this entire planet is made of silicon, it's not something that needs recycling anyway.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >The sun can also be an energy source to make syn-gas (to make synthetic gasoline for cars), or charge a battery, or make hydrogen, or pump water uphill. What does that have to do with silicon as a carrier? It has to do with using the sun to produce the energy that the "carrier" will carry. Nobody said the Sun only has this particular application -- just that is one more application of Solar energy (on sand, and with using silicon as a carrier). >Just because it's in an article doesn't make it correct. This article is really bad. It has just enough truth to make it seem plausible. Seems like someone didn't read it.
    - ars 12y ago
      Everyone keeps accusing me of not reading the article - but I did. The whole thing (despite eye rolls the entire time). > just that is one more application of Solar energy (on sand, and with using silicon as a carrier). You seem to have gotten lost in the argument here. I'm objecting to claiming that using by silicon somehow we reduce CO2 emissions. We don't. Silicon has nothing to do with it. Sure by using the sun we reduce CO2 - but that's orthogonal to using silicon. If you want to talk about using silicon as a load balancer, or a kind of rechargeable battery, then sure it's an interesting idea. But don't start claiming it's some sort of super clean fuel or something like that because it's not.