So, I guess that would be about 9.5 x 10^8 joules per day? I agree that it's poor language choice to say 'needs x watts'. Maybe 'consumes energy at a rate of x watts'?
Either way, there is no way a science journalist should make such a grievous error; it renders his article misleading to most of his readers, and nonsense to the rest.
Due to several creative people I know and love, and a few more creative people that I've met, paths have been revealed to me that may likely enable me to beat a brain tumor that, left alone, will certainly end me. Creative solutions, ideas at first, were shared, imagined, revised, and acted on to instead give me, a 38 year-old, trained to teach middle school-aged students about math, science, and themselves, what I feel is the best chance at survival anyone in my place could possibly have. Of course, the cost of this creativity will give me a nasty headache, some temporarily muddled thoughts, a small chance of reduced vision on my left side, but I will gladly accept the costs of this creativity. I also see some amazing possibilities for all people as we move forward as a society of people creatively trading problems, solutions, and agreeing on acceptable costs. Is that what this is really about? I better get some sleep. It should help me negate some of the opportunity costs of tomorrow's initial decision. Thanks again Mark. Jeff
It's absurd how distracted we get, and how this strips away what isn't substantial. That's one thing those costs are buying. I've been given a perspective that I didn't have, and won't soon forget. We definitely did get that out of this. We are going forward, brother! We have more to create, and that is an awesome thing. Thank you, Jeff.
Jeff