Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by yohanatan 4403 days ago
If you read the article, then you failed at reading comprehension. The drop in efficiency on recycling is mentioned twice.
2 comments

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

No offense, but you're not talking about their use of the word "reduction" are you?
Not exactly. See the reasoning here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7814908