Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Alternative energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric who wrote (16179)	9/4/2016 4:13:23 PM
From: Doren	Respond to of 16955

OK once I looked into it I realized that GW was different than GWh. Pretty poor writing though because it makes energy produced by solar seem "stronger" than the same amount produced by coal. Now I understand that a 2GW turbine array will produce 8.2191780822 GWh per day and 6000 per 365 days, which replaces 6000 GWh produced by coal. He he... confusing stuff for us physics challenged people. Probably what they should have done was to figure out how many tons of coal it would take to produce 6000 GWh: 1,927 kWh per ton, or 0.96 kWh per pound, of coal 1,000,000 kWh per GWh 1,000,000/1927 = 518.9413596264 tons/GWh 6000 x519 x 3,114,000 tons of coal to produce 6000GWh Did I do that right? Its a little confusing. Also how many tons of CO2, CO, and mercury 518.9413596264 tons of burned coal would produce.