4 ms·
> They know what they are talking about. In this article, which is what we're discussing here, it is very clearly either a typo, or it's some journalist spouti
by Florin_Andrei 9y ago
> They know what they are talking about.
In this article, which is what we're discussing here, it is very clearly either a typo, or it's some journalist spouting off above their pay grade.
- epistasis 9y agoWhy do you think that? I read a lot of about grid storage, and I can't come to the same conclusion as you on this one. It's very common to talk about GW in isolation of GWh for storage systems in the press, and for GW to be talked about before GWh. And if you're used to thinking about utilities, it makes a lot of sense, you think about power capacity, and then the duration afterwards. GW is a more direct way to approach that. If you want to get duration from GWh and GW, you have to do a mental division, which is slower than multiplication.
- ScottBurson 9y agoI had the same initial reaction, but I think epistasis is probably right. This is the best reason why they should quote both numbers: so we can be sure they haven't gotten confused and quoted energy as watts.