4 ms·
If you read the article, then you failed at reading comprehension. The drop in efficiency on recycling is mentioned twice.
by 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 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?
- throwaway5752 12y agoNo offense, but you're not talking about their use of the word "reduction" are you?
- yohanatan 12y agoNot exactly. See the reasoning here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7814908 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7814908