solarpunk.rizz.pill@slrpnk.net to Memes@lemmy.mlEnglish · 3 days agoBro might be needing a neuralink frfrlemmy.mlimagemessage-square30fedilinkarrow-up1111arrow-down11
arrow-up1110arrow-down1imageBro might be needing a neuralink frfrlemmy.mlsolarpunk.rizz.pill@slrpnk.net to Memes@lemmy.mlEnglish · 3 days agomessage-square30fedilink
minus-squarepurplemonkeymad@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up16·2 days agoThat’s watts multiplied by time, aka energy.
minus-squareTomtits@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down6·2 days agoSo if you can have a kilowatt per hour, then why can’t you have a gigawatt per year?
minus-squareTaTTe@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up16·2 days agoBecause it’s not kilowatt per hour (kW/h), it’s kilowatt hours (kWh). It would be fine to say GW years, but then the question would be over how long? Most likely one year, which gives us GWy/y = GW.
That’s watts multiplied by time, aka energy.
So if you can have a kilowatt per hour, then why can’t you have a gigawatt per year?
Because it’s not kilowatt per hour (kW/h), it’s kilowatt hours (kWh). It would be fine to say GW years, but then the question would be over how long? Most likely one year, which gives us GWy/y = GW.