[Polpolion]

Oh god dammit. MarkN puts me to shame. kW is power (the time rate of energy), so multiplied by time makes it energy, kWh, but then divided over a year and it's back to power. Derp.

Well fine. I'll still wager that the guy writing the article didn't know any of that.

didn't the article say "67,000kWh of power per year" and not "67,000kWh per year of power?" or did I misread that too? 

[redsniper]

I don't even know anymore. I just saw "67,000 kWh of power," rolled my eyes, made my post, and left.

[MrUnimport]

In layman's terms, power is the thing wot makes the machines keep going. I don't think the use of the word here is an especially egregious error.

[Polpolion]

In layman's terms, power is the thing wot makes the machines keep going. I don't think the use of the word here is an especially egregious error.

You are right in the way that nothing will break when people read this and think that kWh is power. You are wrong in the way that you think it's okay for news institutions to continue to tell people things that are wrong. Both of these points together mean that there are probably bigger mistakes I should be complaining about, but this is the only one that I actually saw recently that has a topic here all ready for complaining. 

[redsniper]

It would be sort of like saying "We've got this new car that can travel at 10,000 miles of speed in one year"

[Klaustrophobia]

no, it's not.  whether you like it or not, "energy" and "power" have been synonyms in conversational use for a LONG time.  i'll wager even you didn't distinguish them before the first time you learned the terms as scientific units in school.  the same can't be said of speed and distance.

[Polpolion]

No, it's exactly like that, and if it weren't there would be no reason to pay attention to most news.

[redsniper]

no, it's not.  whether you like it or not, "energy" and "power" have been synonyms in conversational use for a LONG time.  i'll wager even you didn't distinguish them before the first time you learned the terms as scientific units in school.  the same can't be said of speed and distance.

I realize in everyday speech they mean the same thing because for most people the difference doesn't matter. I was using speed vs distance to illustrate how silly it sounds to people who know better, since those are units everyone would be familiar with.

[LordMelvin]

no, it's not.  whether you like it or not, "energy" and "power" have been synonyms in conversational use for a LONG time.  i'll wager even you didn't distinguish them before the first time you learned the terms as scientific units in school.  the same can't be said of speed and distance.

I realize in everyday speech they mean the same thing because for most people the difference doesn't matter. I was using speed vs distance to illustrate how silly it sounds to people who know better, since those are units everyone would be familiar with.

Isn't one of Godwin's other laws something to do with using automotive metaphors in online discussions?

[redsniper]

Maybe. I mean they both make sense though. The Nazis/Hitler are a good point of comparison for some really bad dudes that most everyone is familiar with from recent history, and cars are complex machines that most everyone use regularly.

* redsniper shrugs

[Qent]

no, it's not.  whether you like it or not, "energy" and "power" have been synonyms in conversational use for a LONG time.  i'll wager even you didn't distinguish them before the first time you learned the terms as scientific units in school.  the same can't be said of speed and distance.

Oddly, they're only used as synonyms in the technical sense when it should be clear that they're distinct. One wouldn't speak of a lust for... energy.

[Ghostavo]

Unless you are insinuating that that kind of power is measured in watts (as in Obama has more wattage than McCain), I'm not sure that comparison is meaningful.

They are two different meanings for the same word. Different issue.

[Bobboau]

1.21 jigawatts.

[Mongoose]

jiggawut

[FlamingCobra]

Wind power would be competitive if we could harness the jet stream.

But we can't v.v

Also, energy and power have been conversational synonyms for so long that we call it a "power plant" instead of an "energy plant" 

[Qent]

Also, energy and power have been conversational synonyms for so long that we call it a "power plant" instead of an "energy plant" 

Why would we call it an energy plant? It really does produce power (energy per unit time).

[MP-Ryan]

Wind power would be competitive if we could harness the jet stream.

Low-altitude wind would be just as useful if we had an adequate and cheap energy-storage technology.  As it is, wind turbines blight the landscape and are only capable of providing power as it is produced.

Even with adequate storage capacity, wind and solar still have significant disadvantages compared against reliable and fairly clean nuclear technologies.

[FlamingCobra]

Wind power would be competitive if we could harness the jet stream.

Low-altitude wind would be just as useful if we had an adequate and cheap energy-storage technology.  As it is, wind turbines blight the landscape and are only capable of providing power as it is produced.

Even with adequate storage capacity, wind and solar still have significant disadvantages compared against reliable and fairly clean nuclear technologies.

Answer: Massive, low-friction flywheels.

[Nuke]

better answer:

impale the snake!

[FlamingCobra]

better answer:

impale the snake!

I'm assuming my solution is flawed, then. Or is that just part of Nukism?