A nuclear proponent makes the case for nuclear power.

[kristopher]

21. McKays analysis on that website is grossly in error.

Last edited Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:05 PM - Edit history (1)

He provided the correct information in the hard copy but uses the invalid data on his website.

This blog link is worth reading fully:
http://energynumbers.info/british-energy-demand-and-professor-mackays-estimate-of-it-an-explanation-of-the-differences

...The numbers in the first third of Professor MacKay’s book all lead to the conclusion on page 103 that even if we used all of our renewable resource to its technical maximum, ignoring economic, social and environmental constraints, then it is not enough to meet our energy demand. And that (as he writes later in the book) this applies to Europe too?—?he writes: “Europe, like Britain, cannot live off its own renewables”.

And yet the figures on 103 are wrong?—?we all agree on that?—?you, me, David, the official statistics. So any conclusion based on them must be in doubt.



Indeed, there are plenty of reasons for doubt?—?because in addition to the inflated demand, the first third of the book also contains economic, social, and environmental constraints on supply, despite the statement to the contrary (I’ll write a bit more about the supply side in a new article, later). So those are not about the physics of the thing at all?—?they’re opinions. So, we have an inflated demand, and a set of political opinions on supply. That’s not (in Professor MacKay’s words) “what the laws of physics say about the limits of sustainable energy”.

As it turns out, Britain’s renewable resource is an order of magnitude higher than our energy demand.

And so Britain, (just like Europe and the whole world) can get 100% of its energy from renewable resources.