kW and kWh - The media dont know the difference

ComplexP

I just heard a factoid on Radio 2 (which I love by the way) saying that Google uses more power per year than some countries to power its search engine which is quite interesting.

But predictably they quoted the figures in kW, ie. 'Google uses x amount of billions of kW per year'.

I keep hearing this mistake in the media and it's starting to annoy me.

kW is an instantaneous measure. kWh is accumulated total.

So for example, if your electric heater uses 2kW of power that means it is using 2kW of power if it is on, full stop. If you leave it on for 8 hours, it's used 2x8 = 16kWh (kW Hours) of energy during that time.

It's a small thing but I wish they'd get it right.

biscit

What's worse is that the idea of kW (unit of power) and kWh (unit of energy) was taught to me at School pre-GCSE.

This makes it general knowledge that it is reasonable to expect of the average person, not geeky obscure stuff.

ComplexP

Thank you biscit, that's exactly the point.

This is the sort of thing we should all be aware of these days if we want to reduce our energy consumption.

For a family on a budget, understanding these basic concepts would allow them to predict their energy bills each month and get a handle on how to reduce them.

So many people have no idea what their quarterly energy bill is telling them or even if it's correct.

fluffnutter

That's an interesting distinction but I'm wondering if the nuances aren't lost on most of the listeners. If the presenter had said 'Google uses x amount of billions of kWh per year' with x being the same as the x you quote in your example then I assume you'd have been happy. I'm also assuming that the listener is actually interested in the accumulated total used in a year (kWh) not the amount of energy Google uses (kW).

If that's the case (and I must admit that I didn't know the difference, so loving that you've enhanced my knowledge) then hasn't the listener actually been told what they're interested in - i.e. the accumulated total. It's only people who know the difference who will notice the error - but crucially they will know it's an error so the end result is the same! The Radio 2 presenter has given the right information because even those who know it's wrong know what was meant.

I hope I've explained that properly! I'm totally with you about the media using terminology incorrectly and possibly misleading listeners, viewers, readers etc. as a result. I've got a real obsession with fashion pages that call black and white clothes 'monochrome'. It's there in black and white (can you see what I've done there?), mono (single), chrome (colour). Something that's pink, or red, or yellow, or green is monochrome. Something that's black and white (two colours!!) is not!

ComplexP

Thanks fluffnutter

You assume correctly

I suppose from the point of view of the show and the point they were trying to make then yes, it achieved its purpose. But I suppose I'm worried about the wider implications of confusing people about a basic unit of measurement that they get on their energy bills.

I'd like to think that if Radio 2 had said x billions of kWh that it would have got a few people googling the term to find out why they'd said it.

But you make an interesting philosophical point, which I like.

fluffnutter

And after I'd posted I read your comment about trying to understand electricity bills which use terms like kW and kWh. It is important that the media get terms right and your post is a good example of why. I think you're totally right to raise this. Some people find it infuriating when 'pedants' point out the inaccuracies of what's broadcast - I love it!

ComplexP

I sometimes do use this to do some rough calculations to see if my energy usage is about what I'd expect it to be. When you break it down for a month you might be surprised at what electrical appliances are the biggest contributors to your bills...

biscit

fluffnutter wrote: »

I think you're totally right to raise this. Some people find it infuriating when 'pedants' point out the inaccuracies of what's broadcast

To be honest I find people who have an extreme aversion to accuracy and detail to be more than a little obnoxious and unpleasant. Getting arsey over "splitting hairs" does not make you a nice person in my book.

fluffnutter

My friend got one of those things for Christmas that show your energy consumption throughout the day. He spent most of the Christmas break watching it obsessively and screaming at his OH whenever she put the tumble dryer on or made herself a cup of tea. She said she'd bought it to try to keep costs down. He pointed out that unless she drank fewer cups of tea each day or went around in damp clothes it would take a long time to recoup the 30 quid or so she spent on it. Marital disharmony ensued but still, gave me a laugh imagining him scrutinising this thing all day whilst his missus was tutting away.

ComplexP

fluffnutter wrote: »

My friend got one of those things for Christmas that show your energy consumption throughout the day. He spent most of the Christmas break watching it obsessively and screaming at his OH whenever she put the tumble dryer on or made herself a cup of tea. She said she'd bought it to try to keep costs down. He pointed out that unless she drank fewer cups of tea each day or went around in damp clothes it would take a long time to recoup the 30 quid or so she spent on it. Marital disharmony ensued but still, gave me a laugh imagining him scrutinising this thing all day whilst his missus was tutting away.

We men love numbers and statistics, especially when it comes to our own stuff. You see it all the time; cameras and their megapixal rating, cars and their horsepower, computers and their processor speeds. I can imagine me doing something like your friend if I got a device like that. I'd probably link it to the computer to create daily graphs...

dampdaveski

Impending divorces aside (not mine)
I found yuour corrected little factoid quite interesting, I never knew the difference, but now I do