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

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the break-even point for a power plant with an effective power generation of 5.43 x 10^7 W and an energy requirement of 9 x 10^16 J. Participants confirm that the break-even time is indeed around 50 years, despite a minor typo in the power value used for calculations. One contributor notes issues with Wolfram Alpha's output, suggesting it may require additional input to clarify results. A strong conclusion is drawn that investing in this power station may not be worthwhile, although some participants question the criteria for this conclusion. Overall, the conversation highlights concerns about the viability of the power plant based on the break-even analysis.
JJ91
Messages
40
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Effective Power generation of the plant is 5.43*10^{7}W but it will required 9*10^{16}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.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top