Unit Conversion W➝J: Break-Even in 50 Years?

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
5 replies · 2K views
JJ91
Messages
40
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Effective Power generation of the plant is 5.43*[itex]10^{7}[/itex]W but it will required 9*[itex]10^{16}[/itex]J to be created.

Essentially the break-even will after solving equation Energy required/Power Generated however I get results of almost 50 years. Would this be correct?

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=9E16+Joules+/+5.34E7+Watts
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In your problem statement you say the Effective Power is 5.43 x 107 W, but on the web page calculation you used 5.34 x 107 W. A typo no doubt. But yes, the result can be expected to be in the neighborhood of 50 years.
 
JJ91 said:
Essentially the break-even will after solving equation Energy required/Power Generated however I get results of almost 50 years. Would this be correct?

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=9E16+Joules+/+5.34E7+Watts
Sans the typo gneill noted, this is correct.

Your link stops for me at 1.685×109 J/W. (Perhaps I've overused wolfram alpha?) Sometimes it helps have to cajole wolfram alpha to that it will take the answer a step further.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=convert+9E16+Joules+/+5.34E7+Watts+to+years
 
The conclusion is simple. There is no point to invest a broken penny into this power station.
 
JJ91 said:
The conclusion is simple. There is no point to invest a broken penny into this power station.

:confused: Huh? Did you fail to properly state the problem? What is the criterion for your conclusion?
 
I don't like the title of that thread. That problem has nothing to do with unit conversion.