Clot wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Clot wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Clot wrote:

wrote:
"Clot" wrote:


But....... if there are 400 million people in the USA
and say 100 million homes.... and if we save just ONE
watt in the fridge bulb.... that is 100 million watts
saved!!

I thought it was below 300m, so a few less watts saved!

~350M I believe.

Interestingly, this came out today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8224520.stm

I've always used the rule of thumb that the US population is five
times the UK and don't see a reason to change it!

The UK is less that 1/3 the size of TX, so think of what that means
for population density and why just about nothing can be compared
across the two countries.

Quite. It's one of the reasons we tend to have smaller vehicles! We each
have an eighth of the space over here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tion_d ensity

That's why the bone heads in either "wing" trying to compare the US
health care system with the UK health care system are just comparing
apples and brussel sprouts, there just isn't much valid comparison.

Clearly delivering health care to a high density population is more
efficient and less costly than delivering the same health care to a
population spread over a much larger area. With low population density,
more medical facilities, doctors, nurses and support staff are required
to serve the same number of people.

The low population density in much of the US is also why mass transit
isn't viable in much of the US. In the areas where the density is
sufficient *gasp* we do have mass transit in the US.