Clot wrote:

CSquared wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...
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

Yeah, but we tend to bunch up pretty badly, so having all that space
doesn't really help a whole lot of us too much.

I was thinking the same way when reading Pete's view, but I think there are
more communities of say ballpark 5, 000 to 10,000 people that are at a
further distance to larger communities than here in the UK which would
result in more local facilities being required in smaller communities than
here in the UK.

Yes, and there are plenty of areas in the US where you can drive for
many miles passing through town after town with triple digit
populations. Providing services to people in these areas is
substantially more expensive than people in a large city. Transportation
issues are a big issue for the poorer folks, you could give universal
coverage to them (which already exists anyway in emergency rooms), but
they still need to somehow get to the medical center that might be 50
miles away.