Thanks for the lovely response to the API's claimed W = Wh. It helped the editor to read more carefully and here is the response, pasted in:
A closer look at the AP guidebook indicated that kwh had to be spelled out, not KW. My error. Thanks for catching it. My reading the first sentence in the quote indicates to me that the editor's closer look is still not close enough. Oh well, good enough for not messing up my manuscript any further this time. No doubt, as claimed ad nausea, the Wh, or worse yet, the "unit" kWh, coined for the purpose to make it easier (!) to converse about energy issues causes, instead, a confusion whereby people do not know that they do not know what they are talking about. I favor the "cold turkey" approach (called pure SI?) as that will make people ask, as claimed also ad nausea, "What the $%^&* is that?" instead of assuming they know, as is the situation with the various tons, and also this kW and kWh. Just the time it would have saved me (and millions of others, I presume) if there were kW and 3.6 MJ instead. Imagine the time and money costs of these mistakes in the public projects. Stan Jakuba
