The style guide of a well-known international publishing house states that the input to a power station should be quotes in MW and its output in MWh. (I shall not name the company as the style guide is an internal document)
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ziser, Jesse Sent: 30 November 2008 05:33 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:42097] Re: Problems with power I thought their use of "power" here was correct, and "energy" seems incorrect. Power is energy per unit time, which is the quantity that matters when referring to potential sources of energy for human use. "All the energy needed in the world" means nothing in particular to me, since no time interval has been specified. All the energy used in the world for one second, one year, and one century are different. But the world has one particular average power consumption, and it is that quantity which must be no larger than the sum of all the power produced by all the power plants in the world. It does not matter how much energy could be produced by ocean currents (in, say, the lifetime of the Earth). What matters is the amount of power we can extract, which depends on our technological efficiency and the effects each watt of capacity has on the environment, for example. It's a pet peeve of mine that some articles will say meaningless things like "this power plant produces 100 megawatt-hours of energy, and the surrounding area uses 200 megawatt-hours" when what they really should be talking about is power. I felt this article got it right. --- Pat Naughtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Editor, > > Many thanks for your article, 'Ocean currents can power the world, say > scientists' By Jasper Copping (Last Updated: 2:39PM GMT 29 Nov 2008). > I really enjoyed learning about this new concept in the extraction of > energy from the sea to provide electrical energy. > > However, I did have problems reading your article at > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/renewableenergy/3535012/Ocean-curren ts-can-power-the-world-say-scientists.html > > because of your choice of words. > > In your headline, 'Ocean currents can power the world, say > scientists', I had a problem with your intention, as I simply didn't > know what you meant by the word, power, in that context. > > After a pause, I went on to read, 'A revolutionary device that can > harness energy from slow-moving rivers and ocean currents could > provide enough power for the entire world, scientists claim'. > > This time your intention seemed clearer; they propose to 'harness > energy' to 'provide . power'. This time my problem was that you were > mistakenly using the word, power, when you clearly intended to refer > to energy. > > Again I had to pause, but not for too long, as this is a common error > for many writers and sub-editors in many of the world's news sources. > I then reviewed your use of the word, power, on each of the 12 times > that you used it in this article (and that caused me to pause each > time while I considered what your meaning might be). > > Specifically, taking the occurrences of power in your article - you > seem to mean: > > 1 'can power the world' - I have no idea what you mean, it could mean > 'to provide all the energy needed in the world' but I couldn't know > this until I got to the next paragraph. > > 2 'enough power for' - 'enough energy for'. > > 3 'use water power' - 'use water energy'. > > 4 'the amount of power produced' - 'the amount of energy produced'. > > 5 'enough power for' - 'enough energy for'. > > 6 'could power an anchored ship' - 'could provide enough energy for an > anchored ship'. > > 7 'generating power in this way' - 'converting energy in this way'. > > 8 'solar power' - 'solar energy'. > > 9 'wave power' - 'wave energy'. > > 10 'Their muscle power' - 'Chemical energy from their muscles alone'. > > Your score so far - 0 out of 10. > > As 11 and 12 are quotes from a scientist who should know how to use > the words, energy and power, correctly, the responsibility for their > misuse cannot be laid at the door of your reporter and your sub- > editors. However, this does not make his usage correct either. It is a > sad thought but it may be that the scientist, knowing that you usually > misuse the words, energy and power, might have been dumbing down his > use of these words for your benefit. > > 11 'harness the powerful and destructive force' - 'harness the > destructive force'. > > 12 'so you produce a lot of power' - 'so you produce a lot of energy'. > > I next searched for your use of the word, power, in other Telegraph > articles. > > It seems to me that there are two serious defects in your use of the > word, power. Power is regularly misused, and it is also overused. Both > misuse and overuse mean that the many different meanings of power > often become hopelessly muddled. > > Misuse > > Misuse of the word, power, is the more serious problem as it a major > cause of confusion. You sometimes use energy when you are writing > about power but, far more often, you use power when you mean energy. > > Power is so often misused from both sides of debates about global > warming, the greenhouse effect, peak energy, and peak oil, that there > is a danger of making any discussion about these important issues > almost meaningless. This paragraph uses common newspaper and internet > examples. > > As Minister, he felt he had real control over power because he could > supply or deny power to the community by increasing power bills or > ordering power rationing in emergencies. He could also manage power > stations from when they start to produce power, to maintaining power > supplies during their lives of power production, until the end of > their power producing life. This applied to all forms of power such > as: chemical power, electrical power, nuclear power, solar power, and > wind power. > > Here, the word, power, is used as though it is synonymous with energy. > It is not. All technical people such as engineers have known since > they were in senior high school science classes that energy (measured > in joules) is defined as the ability to do work and that that power > (measured in watts) is the rate at which you do work or use energy; > and that these are quite different concepts. Using these definitions, > the above paragraph should read: > > As Minister, he felt he had real control over energy because he could > supply or deny energy to the community by increasing energy bills or > ordering energy rationing in emergencies. He could also manage energy > conversion stations from when they start to produce energy, to > maintaining energy supplies during their lives of energy production, > until the end of their energy producing life. This applied to all > forms of energy such as: chemical energy, electrical energy, nuclear > energy, solar energy, and wind energy. > > Overuse > > Overuse means that I have to stop each time I see the word, power, > long enough to decipher your current meaning. This is necessary > because the word, power, in addition to its scientific definition, has > about a dozen other different dictionary descriptions, all with their > associated connotations. For example, I need to pause when you use the > word, power, in the sense of (say) 'political power' that has nice > alliteration but lacks a definite meaning, or 'electrical power' that > has a quite specific scientific definition, which you might not > intend. Here is another paragraph that uses power in some of these non- > technical senses: > > The Minister was a large powerful man, who exuded physical power doing > his power walk along the corridors of power. He got his power position > when his party came to power at the last election, and as the only > engineer in the party in power, the powerful leadership team appointed > him Minister. > > This time, you could purge power altogether to improve readability by > writing: > > The Minister was a large man, whose fitness was obvious as he > vigorously walked around Parliament House. He became Minister when, > after his party won the last election, he was appointed to his present > position by the leadership team. > > > On another issue, thank you for the explanation of the size of a knot > in your second paragraph. Unfortunately, the word, mile, is > meaningless to me as we, in Australia, have not used miles since the > 1970s so I can have no sense of what you mean. For me to visualise a > knot it would have been better to convert knots to metres per second > as I can readily visualise water flowing past me at about half a metre > per second (as a rule of thumb, I halve knots to get metres per > second). If you chose metres per second (m/s) your sentence would then > read: > > The technology can generate electricity in water flowing at a rate of > less than one knot - half a metre per second - meaning it could > operate on most waterways and sea beds around the globe. > > Or you could have worked directly in metres per second, and not used > the word, knot, at all. > > The technology can generate electricity in water flowing at a rate of > half a metre per second meaning it could operate on most waterways and > sea beds around the globe. > > Later references to knots would then become: > > 6 knots = 3 m/s; 3 knots = 1.5 m/s; 2 knots = 1 m/s > > By the way, when you wrote 'acreage', I suppose that you meant 'area' > and you got the concept of the physical reality of area confused with > an old English, pre-metric unit for measuring land. > > Cheers, > > Pat Naughtin > > 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. > > === message truncated ===
