Pat, What do you consider interchangable (and incorrect)? The first graph in Stan's paper is borrowed from DOE. It is incorrectly labelled quadrillion BTU; it should be quadrillion BTU per annum. Energy divided by the time over which is generated or used is average power. Stan's paper is correct and deals with the capacity limitations of renewables. These plants can not generally operate at capacity 24/365. Stan chooses to discuss it in terms of peak power (capacity) and average power. I would probably use capacity and energy per annum (which is disguised power) but either approach is technically correct. It is a matter of which is less confusing to the audience. Certainly the windmills are usually generating MUCH less than capacity power, including a substantial percentage of time when they are not generating at all. Having electricity only when the gods smile on you is a sign of a third-world nation. (Most windmills need 14 m/s wind for capacity power. That is 50 km/h; how common is that in your neighborhood? At half-wind, you get one-eighth power. How common is 25 km/h?) If the DOE graph were really energy not power, then the line for wood which is about a constant 2 quads, would be 2 in 1950, 4 in 1951, 6 in 1952, 8 in 1953, and quickly go offscale. Energy accumulates like miles on a odometer. Miles per year, taken from your odometer, and the hours in a year is a useless indicator of average speed. While technically correct, it falls to account for the hours the car is parked, and tells me nothing about your driving habits, but something about how much maintenance your car requires per year (not that much, but something).
--- On Wed, 3/2/11, Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> wrote: From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:49961] Re: energy flow in watts To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, March 2, 2011, 1:41 AM Dear Bruce, Stan has been studying the use of alternative energy for many years and, I believe, that he is fully qualified to share with us his considered opinions. Without his views we are condemned to the unconsidered assertions of politicians from both the green and the deep red ends of the political range. Where I differ with Stan is in his interchangeable use of the technical words, energy and power. Stan and I have argued this issue on several occasions in the past. Bruce, to bring you up to speed on this issue you might like to read this letter that I sent to my local politicians when they bragged about how much "power" would be saved on a new housing development. To prepare this letter I relied heavily on Stan Jakuba's advice, which I respect. See http://metricationmatters.com/docs/EnergyPowerDistanceSpeed.pdf By the way, you might like to consider the idea of a "passive house" where the energy saving can typically be 80 % less than a normal house because the designers know that they need to convert energy from one form to another and then to do all they can to retain the heat energy within the house. We have used this concept in Australia, not only for heating but also for keeping a house cooler by not letting too much solar energy into the house on hot summer days. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house Cheers, Pat Naughtin Geelong, Australia On 2011/03/02, at 08:33 , [email protected] wrote: Gee, thank Stan, for presenting your bias against Alternative Energy to us, real helpful, and stop presenting so called Metric units to the group, Killowatts have been is use for a long time, since the beginning of electricity. I really do not care for for what you are doing. Every household could be producing its own power vs just being power hogs. Thanks buddy. Bruce E. Arkwright, Jr Erie PA Linux and Metric User and Enforcer Id put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we dont have to wait til oil and coal run out before we tackle that. I wish I had a few more years left. -- Thomas Edison♽☯♑ On Mar 1, 2011, Stanislav Jakuba <[email protected]> wrote: Attached you will find my letter to a concerned U.S. commentator. It is about energy and there is a lot of SI with it, particularly towards the end. I though you might be interested also in the status quo on renewables in the U.S. Stan Jakuba Pat Naughtin LCAMS Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, see http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html Hear Pat speak at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lshRAPvPZY PO Box 305 Belmont 3216, Geelong, Australia Phone: 61 3 5241 2008 Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for their businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA. Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST, and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com for more metrication information, contact Pat at [email protected] or to get the free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to subscribe.
