Talk:Wind power/Archive 2

message: This might be a useful link to add as it has a list of all proposed North American offshore projects OffshoreWind.net
Does anyone have some better images?  I like this one which I know is from San Gorgonio Pass, but I'm not sure of its provenance. Nrcprm2026 21:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do - Windfarm picture - from the south coast of Western Australia near Albany. I took it myself and am happy to release it for use in Wikipeda. --Nickj69 07:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful link

message: Under "Yield" it is stated that greenhouse emissions in Denmark rose 6.2% despite the widespread use of windpower. This number is deceptive and does not show any trend. Denmark exports electricity to Norway, and weather conditions have a large influence on production and demand of electricity. The Danish Energy Authority publishes "observed" and "adjusted" CO2 emissions , the latter show a decrease in emissions for 2003. The observed CO2 emissions fell by 9.4% in 2004. Therefore I removed this meaningless statement from the article. Mathijs Romans 14:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greenhouse emissions in Denmark

message: Hey, I was interested in how a wind farm compared to land usage vs. strip mining for coal, so I tracked down some data and did the math.
Coal mining:
40,000,000 short tons of coal / 1 mile^2 (USGS data for Montana strip mining area)
1000 mw coal plant = 4 mst coal / year (US DOE)
plant lifespan = 50 years
200 mst coal burned over lifetime
total stripmine area to produce coal = 5 miles^2
94 miles^2 = 1000mw wind plant coverage (AWEA)
only 5% of this is actually occupied by turbines (AWEA), or 4.7 miles^2
Thus the actual turbines for a 1000 mw wind farm would occupy less area than the strip mining required to run an equivalent coal plant for 50 years.  However, the additional "buffer" zone around the turbine would be 20x the strip mining.
Still, it seems pretty good, especially when you calculate the resources in transporting coal and the emissions.
I wasn't sure whether or not to put this in the actual article.
* Interesting figures. It should be noted that the typical expected life of a wind turbine is 20 years (although if a facility proves viable the turbines would be upgraded after that). Also, AWEA's insistence that only 5% of the area of a wind farm is actually "used" is like saying a 747 only occupies only a few square feet of ground space (where its wheels sit). A wind turbine needs clearance around it and its visual and noise or vibrational impact are obviously widespread -- especially when they are erected on prominent ridgelines. Kerberos 23:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the land requirements for wind, I can confirm the figure of 0.1 MW per km2 km2/MW - see my source here:. I've therefore removed the 'fact' tag. Perhaps we don't need to resort to such calculations - I've seen them done by researchers, but cant remember who. As for how the land areas compare - it's not all straightforward since the areas are being used very differently but it does support the surprising but important claim that wind energy does not need all that much land area. Jens Nielsen 19:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This cite  says:
Power density 
In order to estimate the amount of capacity that can be allocated to a certain area, the power 
density is a relevant parameter. Estimates from experts at the ECN Wind Energy Department 
have yielded a range for the power density for onshore wind in Europe of 6 to 10 MW/km2. 
which is significantly more than 0.1MW/km2 quoted above. Stephen B Streater 20:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are in agreement, and in fact we refer to the same authors. By mistake, I wrote MW/km2 instead of km2/Mw, as it is used in the article. 10 MW/km2 is 0,1 km2/MW, so the information in the article is ok.  Jens Nielsen 09:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wind Power Land Usage 

message: Can we substantiate whether or not wind power is the fastest growing source (on a percentage basis) of electricity produced in the United States?  The EIA sort of supports that statement  as recently as 2004.  However, note the following:
1)  "commercial hydropower" grew faster, whatever that is; (2) the growth in solar is for utility generated solar (which is dominated by a plant in the mojave desert) -- off grid and/or grid connected electricity produced by non-utilities is not counted.  So many qualifications seem to be required to substantiate this claim that I currently don't think it is a useful claim.  Can we get data for the world as a whole? -- Chuck
Also, note that it is plausible that electricity production increased by 30-some-odd percent in 2004 over 2003 despite losing federal tax breaks due to latencies between when projects are started and when they start producing electricity.  So I'm not sure that it's reasonable for us to suggest that wind power can grow rapidly even without the federal support.  Of course, if we can get some 2005 electricity generation figures for the U.S. ...  -- Chuck
(Chuck) It would help a great deal if you would create a log-in. I enjoy your edits, but there would have been complaints about deleting old comments, as they are instead Archived (which I took care of for you). Your insights are much appreciated. Benjamin Gatti 00:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the etiquette lesson.  ;-)  Chuck Simmons 00:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fastest growing 

message: I thought we had verified that it took 18 weeks for a turbine to replace its cost of materials and construction, and recover the expended CO2 on balance.  Is that still in the article or did someone take it out? --James S. 06:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction cost and externality recovery 

message: Here is an interesting report:  http://www.ssmi.com/papers/ocean_surface.pdf
--James S. 00:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Global mean wind speed

message: I spotted this in an energy bulletin:
"Wind goes forward in 2005.
World wind generating capacity surged 25% in 2005, to 59 GWe. Much of this
is in Europe (41 GWe), but the most rapid growth was in Asia, Australia,
Canada and Egypt."
GWEC 22/2/06.
Simesa 19:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: a VERY interesting NEW concept/idea that should be added in the article: The Wind Energy Skyscrapers Power Plants Gaetanomarano 20:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, a lot of statements with no supporting data.  #1 - 30% transmission losses...where did that number come from? #2 - What is the rated output of these 250 smaller turbines and at what wind speed do they cut-in/cut-out?  #3 - What is the efficiency of the "energy storage device"?  #4 - How will this eliminate the bird killing issue?  Birds fly around and land on buildings.  #5 - How much of an impact on productive land do large utility scale wind farms have?  #6 - Has the fact that the turbines on the opposite side of the structure from the wind will have a lower output due to the energy taken out of the wind by the first rows of the turbines.  That is just the start of my questions.  This article makes many claims without any hard data supporting it, just vague generalizations. In my opinion there is no way this should be added.Doublee 14:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't read the materials, but this makes it sound like the very definition of original research and as such does not belong here.  Cheers Geologyguy 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article seems to ignore the fact that oil isn't used to create electricity, so increasing wind power has no impact on reducing dependence on oil (unless electric cars become a lot more common).  TastyCakes 21:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This link no longer works.  TastyCakes 21:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  News items 

message: I removed this image.  It doesn't communcate dual land use as well as the new top photo. --James S. 10:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed image 

message: Wtshymanski justified changing:
:The cost of wind-generated electric power is plummeting, and is much lower than the cost and externalities of fuel-generated electric power, and lower than the cost alone. 
to:
:The cost of wind-generated electric power has declined since the 1990's and now may compete with the cost of new fossil-fuelled power plants. Monetizing the environmental effects of fossil-fuel emissions may in fact make the total cost of wind power lower than fossil-fuelled electricity. [same source]
with this edit summary:  fossil and hydo plants are still being built 
What does that have to do with the edit?  The source cited, and the secondary sources it cites, all support the former version.  Wtshymanski's version may be technically true, but not as source-supported.  For example, the cost of wind power has declined since the 1990s, but it has also declined since the 1980s, the 1970s, and even the early 2000s.  Using the '90s is arbitrary.  The source clearly states that the cost is "plummeting" which is an accurate description of the steep trend involved.  
And most importantly, the cost of generation is firmly below the cost of non-wind forms, and has been since 2004 -- a fact which Wtshymanski tries to hide in his next edit, complaining about a kwh/kw typo in a Rocky Mountain News article  which doesn't have anything to do with its table of the per-kwh costs of power.
So, why does Wtshymanski also delete a corroborating detailed discussion from Science magazine?  No word on that in his edit summary.  
Perhaps some editors simply believe that if their personal point of view isn't supported by sources included in the article, then those sources need to be deleted.  Sadly, that is the exact opposite of how editors are expected to behave. --James S. 20:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I thought encyclopedias had to be accurate and clear. Sometimes I forget this is the Wikipedia. See the discussion above on the Rocky Mountain News article's innumeracy. Why, if wind is the cheapest form of electric power, are there any natural gas, wind, or coal plants being built? They are, you know. The "Science" discussion includes the "environmental cost" which your power bill does not include. I had rephrased the sentence to indicate that IF the "environmental costs" are included, yada yada.. Maybe someone can find a *different* reference than the gee-whiz "Rocky Mountain News" article that gets costs wrong by four orders of magnitude. Maybe some editors believe that encyclopedia articles should have a neutral point of view and not grind axes on behalf of one or another cause. It's be nice if the references actually supported what the article was saying, too.   --Wtshymanski 21:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does the RMN's typo have to do with the accuracy of the table at the end of the article?  Do you have any sources which support your view that new wind power costs didn't dip below new coal power costs in 2004?  The straw-man argument is just plain absurd:  Why, if coal was the chapest form from 1903-2003, did anyone ever build a hydro, gas, nuclear or other kind of plant during that century?  Did you even read the Science magazine article corroborating the RMN data? --James S. 21:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See for example page 17 of the .PDF file you'll find at  - part of sworn testimony before the Manitoba Clean Environment Commission and prepared by people who know the difference between a kwh and a kw.  --Wtshymanski 21:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The presentation is dated March-April 2004, and the page 17 slide is dated 2002. I think the numbers are about right because the prices fell substantially when the 2 MW turbines started entering mass production in that time frame.  Now, 4 MW is closer to the de facto standard, and that slide would look vastly different because a 4 MW turbine costs much closer to the same as a 2 MW turbine than double. --James S. 22:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, with pumped hydro and other forms of grid storage available in most locations, the difference between the value of wind and demand-assignable forms works out to about 20%, and that is exactly where prices are teetering at parity in the U.S. at present. --James S. 08:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most locations?! --Kerberos 17:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anywhere connected to a grid which has pumped hydro or demand hydro for shaping. Is that not most places these days? --James S. 19:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A small hydro plant in Vermont is hardly going to help balance a wind power facility in North Dakota, even if their grids are ultimately interconnected. --Kerberos 01:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other kinds of generation are irrelevant 

message: This seems to be a pretty politically charged article.  How about a nice cozy history section that everyone agrees on?  The only thing that stops me putting one in is that there's already a history section for the wind turbine article.  However, I think that if anything I think it would be more fitting in this article than that one since this is looking at wind power from a broader perspective.  TastyCakes 04:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: I propose adding proportionate rankings (the percentage of a nations generation) to 'installed windpower capacity' table.
This could be linked to separate articles for each nations wind / alternate programs or to a consolidated and more detailed comparative table of other indicators such as legislated targets, associated social and economic data etc.
What do you think ?
Theo Pardilla 14:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think many countries have seperate articles for their individual wind programs.  Don't see any problem with adding % of generation though.  I think it should still be ordered by magnitude though.  TastyCakes 20:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Country Usage Rankings

message: I've been moving things out of the economics section that don't belong there.  Also I've been looking at the "sources" of the section and a lot of them seem pretty shady.  For example, the statement "In recent years, the cost of wind-generated electric power has dropped substantially, and by most accounts is now lower than the cost of fuel-generated electric power, even without taking externalities into account" is supported by this site.  That site consists of a light weight chat with Lester Brown, president of some environmental group I've never heard of, and then mentions "Past Energy Department studies have concluded wind harvested in just three of the 50 American states could provide enough electricity to power the entire country, and that offshore wind farms could do the same job." (irrelevant to an economics argument) and then some long stretch assumptions about running cars on electricity.  Can we not get links to the actual studies, rather than environmentalists discussing studies (presumably only the ones that came back how they liked?)  TastyCakes 02:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My sister is a whizz at renewables. I'll see if she has anything to hand. In the UK, the wholesale price of methane (use to power most of our generators) has gone up 4 times recently. Wind power is getting cheaper. So it is looking more likely to be true than ever before. I'll see if I can get some actual figures. Stephen B Streater 10:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that under optimal conditions wind is cheaper in the US, but because of the rates utilities face sending electricity across other people's lines to cities, and because a backup source is still usually needed, in practice it is not cheaper and that is why new power installations are not dominated by wind.  But I don't have a proper source for any of that. TastyCakes 15:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wind is good for the base load. For a reliable energy supply, it must be backed up with coal, gas or biomass in case the wind drops off. The UK has a long coastline and is very windy. A new off-shore wind farm in the North Sea gets its energy of construction back in 7 months. The problem in the UK is getting planning permission. Also, in the UK, energy is used a lot for heating houses in the winter - when it is windiest. Very convenient. I'll look up some stats. Stephen B Streater 16:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economics section

message: For future update to the article: India's total windpower capactiy as of March 2006 (end of financial year of 2005) was at 5,200 MW - an increase of 1702MW or 45%.  Here is a link--Blacksun 21:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: India's windpower capacity @ FY-2006

message: Is it just me or should some of the information in this section be in the wind turbine section rather than here?  It seems very technical and I thought the wind power section was supposed to be a higher level look at the wind power, rather than the nuts and bolts of how a turbine works?  TastyCakes 16:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wind variability and turbine power section

message: I change the heading of the controversy and arrangement of the for and against section arguments for the following reasons. Since the section was written in a for and against bullet style rather then paragraph style I felt the heading "The debate for and against wind power" was more appropraite. Secondly, it is traditional to have the for come before against and as such I reversed the order so it matches every other for and against Wikipedia section I've seen. --Cab88 17:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer this formulation, with for and against separated, but some of the "againsts" are actually positive, so I might move them up. For example, the extremely fast energy payback times are a positive compared to all non-renewable sources, and the fact you can use the land for farming is also a big plus, as you are effectively using the land twice. Stephen B Streater 18:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WTH happened to the controversy section?! I don't see *anything* to indicate that there is controversy with wind power, which there certainly is. I went to this article to see just how cost competative wind energy is compared to other forms of power generation and I CAN'T FIND IT! It's like someone with a POV for wind power has selectively edited anything negative about wind power out (probably a wind generator company or "California dreamer" activist). This article is ridiculous as it currently stands. 142.161.117.186 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: I just removed "[citation needed]" from the 'Economic Feasibilty' section because the specifics were clearly cited earlier in the article. --Doc Tropics 18:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem wasn't that there weren't sources, but that they weren't (and aren't) particularly impressive.  They are for the most part non-technical puff pieces with clear POV issues.  TastyCakes 14:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite Tag

message: I ran the below to help identify areas that might do with improvement --jwandersTalk 18:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Automatic peer review

message: On 21:11, 2 August 2006 Jwanders deleted my contrib to "Wind Power" page, regarding vertical axis wind generators (Kitegen Project). I'm not interested in editing wars, so I simply wish to know why. It was not possible to integrate my contrib inside the page article? The text I submitted is a translation (from italian to english) taken from the italian Wikipedia page "Energia Eolica" linked to "Wind Power" page. uSER:Magius
: I think you have your answer  :-) Stephen B Streater 23:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vertical axis wind generators' article deleted  by Jwanders

message: " This is to be compared with an always negative payback ratio of fossil or nuclear plants as they burn resources for their operation which are non-renewable. The ratio between the energy output and the construction energy (not taking into account the operation energy!) "
There is certainly merit to the points taken above.  Fuel energy is not part of the equation cited in the current section, so the energy payback calculation mentioned is missing an important element.  Furthermore, other calculations have shown that wind turbine installations (and decommissioning) have a payback factor of 80. http://www.windpower.org/media(444,1033)/The_energy_balance_of_modern_wind_turbines%2C_1997.pdf  So this section needs to undergo correction.  Skyemoor 19:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy Payback 

message: I decided to be bold and replace the long list of external links to manufacturers with a directory link, since it's more comprehensive and Wikipedia isn't a link directory. Let me know if there are any objections. Wmahan. 04:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed links to manufacturers 

message: Recorded experience that wind turbines are noisy and visually intrusive creates resistance to the establishment of land-based wind farms in most places. Moving the turbines far offshore mitigates the problem, but offshore wind farms are more expensive to maintain and there is an increase in transmission loss due to longer distances of power lines.
I imagine the transmission line loss is trivially small, and should be removed.  There should be much more mention of the impact on ocean life, though; erosion/disturbing the sea bed, enhancing the sea bed with an artifical reef, noise, etc.
* Effects of noise from marine wind power plants on fish and marine mammals [User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 17:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, this is psuedo-scientific. Lot's of easily accessible numbers are thrown around, though it appears that calculations are based on the sound being actually generated in the water, until one gets to this paragraph, "Sound waves are partly reflected on the water surface and the remainder penetrates the water. Greatest acoustic pressure will be created on the water surface at a reflection level when entering sound waves, due to interference, overlap with reflected sound waves [1]. It is exactly at this point with the highest noise level that sea mammals are most dependent on breathing". Yes, sound waves are reflected, and note that no calculations are performed.  There is also destructive interference that cancels out much of the amplitude, and that is not mentioned nor calculated. Finally, the constructive interference is mentioned in an odd way, without proper support or explanation, and we are told it is simply bad.  This reference would not be useful nor informative in this article.  Skyemoor 19:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This reference has little substantive findings, only that some species that can hear such low frequencies 'may' have a response (and nothing about becoming accustomed to such sounds).  Skyemoor 19:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Requires subscription, no evaluation.  Skyemoor 19:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting, but unsourced, undated, etc, therefore not a valid WP reference. Is there a sourced paper that this was derived from?  Skyemoor 19:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Good general coverage of issues, and of the solutions as well. Skyemoor 19:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also good general coverage and mitigations.  Skyemoor 19:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tweaks 

message: I'm going to take a stab at removing some of the external links to this article.  Warning message was posted earlier and it appears the article is attracting links to websites that don't meet WP:EL guidelines, in particular sites with excessive Google ads and promotional sites.  If I get too aggressive and remove some links that you think are valuable, please let me know by placing your comments here. Calltech 18:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Revisited the cleanup and reorganized external links into Wind Power Projects with external link to one site listing projects plus WP articles about existing projects.  The remaining links were removed and dmoz was substituted per WP:EL recommendation.  Wind power External links was becoming simply a directory of links.  Removed the original guideline warning message, but included an internal warning for future link additions.  If you feel an external link is a valuable resource and it conforms to WP guidelines and the information cannot be added to the article itself, please make a comment here and gain consensus before adding.  If I removed your link, please don't take it personally.  This article's links section simply needed to be cleaned up.  Thanks!  Calltech 18:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links cleanup 

message: An anonymous user inserted "onshore and near shore" and other variations throughout the article without reference.  I will delete these if not referenced/sourced shortly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skyemoor (talk • contribs) 19:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Onshore, Near Shore 

message: I couldn't help but wonder about the nuclear EROI (energy return on investment) figure.  Not only does the statement "nuclear power [EROI] is probably no greater than 5:1" sound questionable (probably no greater than?), but it is quite out of line with the 40-60 (cited) figure claimed on the Nuclear power controversy page.
Tyson 19:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's been changed in the Economics of new nuclear power plants article - basically, all the numbers can be gotten from the reference.  I'll check to see if the statement is still in the reconstituted Nuclear power controversy article. Simesa 01:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear EROI Figure 

message: This:
* The energy in the winds that blow across the United States each year could produce more than 16 billion GJ of electricity—more than one and one-half times the electricity consumed in the United States in 2000.
was on the Solar energy page. If it isn't on here already, somebody could use it for something relevant. Though probably not, b/c there isn't a citation. vLaDsINgEr 21:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random Factoid 

message: I have cut (hidden in comments) the energy storage section and replaced with more general text. This section was turning into a discussion of specific technologies for energy storage rather than wind energy (and energy storage in the context of wind). I have not tried to place the text elsewhere, and would be grateful if someone could identify where this material fits best.--Gregalton 16:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy storage 

message: I found the word oshore while running a spellcheck. I cannot tell if this should be onshore or offshore by the context.
Illinoisavonlady 15:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thank you for catching this.--Gregalton 06:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear typo 

message: In the section on utilization it states The average output of one megawatt of wind power is equivalent to the average consumption of about 160 American households.
Output of one megawatt of wind power is : 1000kW x 35% capacity = 350kW (3,066MWh/yr).  If Americans use 9kw (78.8MWh/yr) then the output of 1MW is equivalent to 39 American people. (11.4kW gross, 9kW useful).  How can using the 160 households be justified? Also googled for the 160 figure and couldn't find a source - does anyone know where it comes from? I will remove this figure next week if no-one can shed some light on the matter. - Ctbolt 06:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The doc you used had a typo - it should have said net 9kWh (kilo-watt hours) per person, not kW. See also IEA world consumption figures, where US is given as consuming 13338 kWh per person per year (presumably this is the gross, which roughly matches the figures above allowing for different base yars). Hence the calculation is 3,066,000 kWh per year divided by 9,000 kWh per year, or 340 individuals. The household figure is presumably based upon a figure of about 2.1 individuals per household, which sounds about right. Even using the IEA gross figures gives 230 individuals. (As a side note, the World energy resources Wiki article appears to be hopelessly messed up, as do many other articles, about the distinction between kWh and kW). Anyway, here's hoping I haven't committed some similar error. And I agree with you that whatever the "right" answer is, this should be referenced. Best,--Gregalton 06:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Gregalton, looks to be in the ballpark. - Ctbolt 10:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utilization - 1MW = 160 people. 

message: Does anyone have information on wind penetration that could be put in a table? Preferably by grid, but by country would also be useful.--Gregalton 09:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table on penetration limits? 

message: Can someone double check that? E normally stands for voltage, what is this formula? Is it power or voltage? shown at line 33 on last edit. Illinoisavonlady 15:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: V is also used for voltage.  Have you ever heard the formula E=mc2 (actually the best known formula in the world)?  My recollection is that E = energy in that formula. 199.125.109.33 16:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy equals E?