[dred_blue]

"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]

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]

If you read the article, then you failed at reading comprehension. The drop in efficiency on recycling is mentioned twice.

[ars]

No it's not. And if you think it is go ahead and copy it here.

[yohanatan]

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]

No offense, but you're not talking about their use of the word "reduction" are you?

[yohanatan]

Not exactly. See the reasoning here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7814908