Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

NNadir

(38,022 posts)

23. No. I accessed the paper on which this pop misinformation is based.

Reply to multigraincracker (Reply #13)

Sat Mar 28, 2026, 02:16 PM

Saturday

JACS is a very respected journal, but this popular website has poorly interpreted what the JACS paper says.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

multigraincracker

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We may not need any stinking oil after all.. [View all] multigraincracker Saturday OP

Someone please explain how this doesn't break the first law of thermodynamics. harumph Saturday #1

it is harnessing a 'second' source of energy, in addition to the solar stopdiggin Saturday #2

Not if it's harnessing solar power, which is infinite as long as we have a source FakeNoose Saturday #7

'solar power' doesn't do anything like 'revising' thermodynamics ... stopdiggin Saturday #30

I have no science background Eddie Haskell 60 Saturday #9

No, that is thermodynamics. mr715 Saturday #18

cool Eddie Haskell 60 Saturday #21

I'm not buying any of this. To start with, there is no such thing as 100% efficency in any realm. flashman13 Saturday #12

The 130% number being bandied about in the article refers to quantum efficiency Shermann Saturday #16

I am always raising my eyebrows James48 Saturday #3

Why? mr715 Saturday #19

It isn't 130% efficient if it is 2 energy harvesting events. mr715 Saturday #4

I discussed this badly misinterpreted wishful thinking case in another thread on the topic. NNadir Saturday #5

No angrychair Saturday #6

Mercury in the exhaust smoke. BidenRocks Saturday #8

That is appalling and dangerous nonsense. When confronted... NNadir Saturday #10

I was just using it as an example angrychair Saturday #28

Again, the question is, did radioactivity from nuclear power plants kill as many people in 70 years as died in the... NNadir Saturday #32

So by your logic angrychair Saturday #33

poster said absolutely nothing of the sort stopdiggin 17 hrs ago #39

After coal is burned fly ash has to be disposed of. What goes into the air stays in the air. twodogsbarking Saturday #11

Coal ash has radioactivity and heavy metals IbogaProject Saturday #14

More people have died in coal processing, burning than nuclear. mr715 Saturday #15

Nonsense Disaffected Saturday #24

Coal's main byproduct is CO2 NickB79 Saturday #29

you could not be more completely misinformed - or wrong about a particular subject. stopdiggin Saturday #31

Hanford angrychair Saturday #34

Trade offs for any decision. mr715 Yesterday #37

No. They do not. (say differently) stopdiggin 17 hrs ago #38

Isn't this a peer review journal? multigraincracker Saturday #13

Its a popsci distillation. mr715 Saturday #17

No. I accessed the paper on which this pop misinformation is based. NNadir Saturday #23

It's not a perpetual motion machine swong19104 Saturday #20

Link to the actual scientific paper mentioned in the press report JHB Saturday #22

The paper if not talking about energy conversion efficiency. Disaffected Saturday #25

Wait!?! H2O Man Saturday #27

Recommended. H2O Man Saturday #26

Violates the first Law of Thermodynamics Smells like BS Melon Yesterday #35

Whatever bankrupts the wretched Saudi oligarchs, the better! Initech Yesterday #36