Back to the Future’s 1.21 gigawatts sounds huge, but is it? We compare different power levels of common objects to see how much energy a gigawatt really is.

  • Cap@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    It would have the equivalent power of 1.3 million horses kicking a hole in the fabric of reality.

    Finally explained in terms I can understand!

    • Technoguyfication@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Where are you getting those numbers from? First of all, GW is a unit of power, not energy. You can’t “produce 1.21GW in a day” because it’s a measurement of instantaneous power. Some nuclear reactors produce around 1GW(e), which means 1 gigawatt hour per hour.

        • ignirtoq@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yeah, and the article is wrong, though only slightly. They seem to be confusing watts (power, energy over time) with Joules (energy, power times a duration of time). They give a passable definition in the beginning (“energy transfer”), but they seem to misunderstand what the “transfer” part means exactly.

          If you find-replace all instances of “watt” with “watt-hour” after that starting definition, it would be more accurate. That’s why I say it’s only slightly wrong.

      • po-lina-ergi@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        1.21 gw = output of one nuke plant
        1.21 gw × 1 day = (power requirements of a house) × (100 years)

        I’m guessing

    • reflex@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      1.21gw == output of 1 nuke plant for 1 day == power single home for 100 years

      avg lightning = 10gw

      Whoa, this is heavy.

      • inkican@kbin.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        There’s that word again. ‘Heavy.’ Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the Earth’s gravitational pull?

  • Jajcus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    A 100-watt bulb is so named because it uses 100 watts of energy for every hour of operation.

    This does not make sense. watt is not a unit of energy.

    Neither does this:

    We’re still nowhere close to a gigawatt, we’ll need 1,000 megawatts to get there. That’s enough electricity to keep the average American home powered up for 100 years.

    • Entropywins@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      For anyone curious energy is the ability to do work and power is how fast that work can be done. Power represented in watts is the relationship of units of energy per unit of time or 1 watt = 1 joule (energy unit or work that can be done) per second.

    • Bizarroland@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      When I read those things I always assume they’re talking about megawatt hours.

      Considering that the average american home consumes a little under 1000 kilowatt hours a month then the math starts to line up.

      1000 KW hours is 1 megawatt hour. 1,000 megawatt hours is 1 gigawatt hour, so 1,000 months, while being a bit shy of 100 years, is still 83 years and change.

  • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    This article is completely wrong.

    Watts doesn’t have a time factor at all.

    Power is measured in W (Watts).
    Energy is measured in J (Joule’s), or Wh (Watt-hours) where 1 Wh = 3600 J.

    So 1.21GW is enough power to light 12.1 million 100 W bulbs, if you kept them powered for 1s you would use 1.21GJ of energy, which is 3.36MWh.

    I can’t believe how badly the article gets it wrong.

    I’m an engineer, I work with this stuff regularly.

  • palitu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Sorry for the down vote, but that article confuses watts and watt hours.

    And as such should be burnt at the stake!

    • teft@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      It was though? Doc Brown just says gigawatt with a soft G while we people of the future pronounce it with a hard G.

      You would think he’d get it right since he has a time machine and can go find out how people talk in the future.

      https://youtu.be/BDuZqYeNiOA?t=49