I found it a bit ironic that the halftime show sponsored by the new Chevrolet Cruze (electric powered sedan) looked like it consumed a large amount of electricity. I wonder how many Cruze’s will need to be sold to make up the amount of electricity consumed by the Black Eyed Peas and their half-time performance.
BTUs are a unit of energy, not power.
Better question: "How many kilowatt-hours (kW·h) of energy did the half-time show of Superbowl XLV consume?
I don’t have an answer for you, but the Halftime show was sponsored by Bridgestone, not Chevrolet.
They were wearing LED’s. “Greener” than incandescent.
I don’t have the answer, but I would like to offer some perspective.
Turn on one radio and one light to amuse one person and it’s no big thing.
Turn on 10,000 radios and 10,000 lights to amuse 1 person and it’s wasteful.
Turn on 10,000 radios (or the stadium sound system) and 10,000 lights to amuse 50,000,000 people and it makes the message point of your question trivial.
Even better question: “How many kilowatt-hours (kW·h) of energy did the half-time show of Superbowl XLV transform from one form of energy into another?”
Fair enough, but a little pedantic.
How about: “How many kilowatt-hours (kW·h) of electrical energy did the half-time show of Superbowl XLV utilize?”
Also, while we’re nitpicking, GM’s fancy new hybrid is the Volt. The Cruze shares the platform but with a conventional drivetrain, albeit a turbocharged 4 that gets pretty good mileage for a midsize sedan.
The fact that the act sucked made it a complete waste of energy.
Not enough to fully light up the LO 'E platform, anyway.
It looked to me more like electroluminescent cable, which is a different technology than LEDs. Still more efficient than incandescent, though. And they certainly used less energy than the big floodlights that were lighting the entire stadium for the rest of the game, and which would have been used in the halftime show if the performers weren’t all glowy.