In the UK (and Oz will use broadly similar terminology), electricity comes from
things we call 'power stations'. My electricity is supplied by Scottish Power
(and no, I don't live in Scotland, they are just the provider - I can choose
between any number of providers). Having said that, most people will use the
term 'electricity' (or maybe 'the electric') when talking about the stuff
coming through the wires - except when it stops coming, and then it's a 'power
cut' (or more frequently these days, adoption of North American terminology
'power outage').
I realise that in no way does this clear the air in terms of terminology - just
thought you might be interested....
Cheers
John F-L
----- Original Message -----
From: Stan Jakuba
To: U.S. Metric Association
Cc: Robert Bryce
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:19 PM
Subject: [USMA:45862] Re: Can journalists be cured of their affliction?
Pat:
The terminology between the US and AU may be getting us into trouble. In the
U.S., nobody calls electricity generating facilities anything but POWER PLANTS.
What do they call them Down Under?
I hate the term "power plant" but my "electricity generating facility" is
awkward. Besides, power plants deliver sometimes also heat. Thus "electricity
(and heat where applicable) delivering facilities"? Notice that "generating"
electricity (a form of energy) is not possible in the sense that energy cannot
be created nor destroyed. Thus the ".... delivering facility"? :-)
Unfortunately for our energy/power clarification effort, the term "power
plant" is correct. This is why: One delivers energy to the plant (a pile of
coal, water behind a dam, etc.) and the plant delivers power from it. In other
words, the plant makes the energy flow, and that flow is power. To illustrate,
the energy in the coal does absolutely nothing. It did nothing for gazillion
years (thanks God, that's why we still have it today). The energy in it, in the
coal case the heat of combustion, is irrelevant until a plant makes it flow,
i.e. burning it making power. Or the valve in the dam allowing the water flow =
power is then being delivered.
The problem lies in the term "power" being synonymous with "electricity" (not
"energy") in the U.S. Rate payers pay for the amount of electricity billed but
most U.S. call it paying for "power." How is that terminology treated Down
Under?"
So, you see, I had used the Americanism - power plant - because the term is
familiar to most on this forum, and because the "power" is correct according to
physics, and also because it is brief. The only specification that is needed
concerns: What kind of power? - electrical or heating or both?
<I agree that this is done at a particular rate (of power)> -- You mean rate
"of energy." Power is (time) rate of energy.
Stan
----- Original Message -----
From: Pat Naughtin
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: 09 Sep 20, Sunday 16:33
Subject: [USMA:45854] Re: Can journalists be cured of their affliction?
Dear Stan,
OK, I'll concede that when you write 'Also, the output should be NET,
meaning the power needed to feed the field and to operate, including starts and
stops, the machinery is deducted from the output …' you are comparing power
with power.
However, I am still having trouble with the ideas in the phrase '- just
like any non-renewable-energy power-plant is judged.' as I am having trouble
with the expression 'power plant'. I suppose that you mean some kind of
industrial place (factory, works, …) where energy of one kind is changed into
energy of another kind and I agree that this is done at a particular rate (of
power).
However, I truly believe that the difficulty in making the distinction
between energy and power is too sophisticated for members of the public, for
journalists and for the politicians who use the writings of journalists seeking
reliable advice on energy and power issues. Sadly, I am aware of many
journalists who are not trained to understand the distinction between energy
and power – or worse – do not even know that such a distinction exists. I am
daily confronted by this lack of knowledge of this distinction on TV, radio,
and in the print media.
I think that the way we communicate has to be so abundantly clear that the
confusion between energy and power cannot arise. I know that you are fully
aware of these differences and you distinguish between them clearly in your
mind.
My personal problem with this is that I sometimes (often) make assumptions
about what my reader already knows and understands – and I am often wrong.
(This idea of making an assumption as an expert is sometimes called the 'curse
of knowledge', a term used by Chip and Dan Heath in their popular book, 'Made
to Stick: Why some ideas survive and others die', see
http://www.amazon.com/Made-Stick-Ideas-Survive-Others/dp/1400064287/ref=pd_sim_b_1
In McKay's case, he clearly stated at the start of his work that although
as an expert he knew the distinction between energy and power, he had decided
to use the term power incorrectly throughout his book. I criticised him on that
point.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, that you can obtain from
http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html
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 pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com or to get the free 'Metrication matters'
newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to subscribe.
On 2009/09/21, at 00:12 , Stan Jakuba wrote:
Dear Pat:
The first paragraph talks about energy and means energy.
The second paragraph talks about power. It uses power terms such as
OUTPUT and the unit W (W/m²).
There is no conflict.
Let's not be paranoid about this. Nothing forbids expressing energy
issues in terms of energy AMOUNT and/or energy FLOW as long as it fits the
contents. One can deduct energy from energy or power from power. I could have
phrased the two paragraphs in reverse order, POWER in the first, ENERGY in the
second. Or both in terms of POWER or both, less conveniently, in terms of
ENERGY.
We have been thru this before trying to persuade you that MacKay,
although mixing up the terms in several instances, was correct in that one case
of the response to you.
Stan
----- Original Message -----
From: Pat Naughtin
To: jak...@snet.net
Cc: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: 09 Sep 20, Sunday 03:42
Subject: Re: [USMA:45820] Can journalists be cured of their affliction?
On 2009/09/17, at 07:00 , Stan Jakuba wrote:
Nobody will know the actual amount of energy generated until after a
few years of operation; predictions and extrapolations are a dime a dozen. The
production must be measured 24/7, regardless how many shut-downs for
modifications and updates occurred, and not just the net time when the wind
blows and everything works just as predicted.
Also, the output should be NET, meaning the power needed to feed the
field and to operate, including starts and stops, the machinery is deducted
from the output - just like any non-renewable-energy power-plant is judged.
Then 1 W/m² is a pretty good output during, say, a 5-years existence.
Stan Jakuba
Dear Stan,
Since our goal is to help journalists to use quantity names and unit
names correctly, it is probably best if we use these words accurately
ourselves. In your first paragraph, you use the word energy correctly to mean
'the ability to do work'. Unfortunately, I am having trouble with the second
paragraph because it seems to me that you have used the quantity name, power,
to mean energy on both occasions where you use it.
This letter, that I sent to the editor of 'The Age' newspaper in
Melbourne Australia, might help to explain my position on this issue.
The Editor
'The Age'
Melbourne
Dear Editor,
Power has a problem.
I am writing to alert you to two serious defects in your use of the
word, power. Power is regularly misused, and it is also one of the most
overused words in politics and in the media. 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
and, 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 examples from 'The Age'.
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 now reads:
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 meanings, 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 using examples from 'The Age' that
uses power in 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.
Cheers,
P.S. I will try to find the time to develop this letter into an article
for wider distribution. The misuse and overuse of the word, power, are not
confined to a single newspaper in Australia!
Pat Naughtin
Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, that you can obtain
from http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html
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 pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com or to get the free 'Metrication matters'
newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to subscribe.
