My numbers are not wrong, the IEA (and EIA) numbers are wrong, because they multiply them by 3. and they say so. Any property of apples and oranges can be compared, such as color, mass, size, shape, and oh yes calorie content, or energy. As much as 90% of the total energy we use is wasted, but there is no excuse for not using correct mathematics in converting one energy unit to another. If we got 6% of our energy from nuclear, and 14% of our electricity from nuclear, then that would mean that we got 0.06/0.14 or 43% of our energy from electricity. Oops, according to the very same IEA, Key World Energy Statistics 2008, pg. 28, electricity is only 16.7% of total energy, so if nuclear is 14% of electricity, and electricity is 16.7% of total, then nuclear is 0.167*0.14 or 2.3% of total. Instead of fixing the problem, the U.S. has compounded the problem by using about 10,000 Btu/kWh for other energy sources as well (just for giggles, check out the tables of “Btu per Kilowatthour”, which would be like a table of inches per foot year by year and ranging from 35 to 72, instead of just using 12). For example, if you look at the graph that Frank Mierlo created for World energy resources and consumption, Image:World Energy consumption.png, and I do not know the exact reference he used in 2007, but it shows nuclear about three times hydro, although the reference given now shows nuclear and hydro both about the same, as they are, while the reference used originally evidently used the fictitious times 3 multiplier only for nuclear. The reference in the article today, uses a fictitious multiplier for both nuclear and hydro, showing that hydro in 2006 was 29.728 Quads and nuclear 27.758 Quads, yet that would be 8,712 TWh, but pg. 19 of the Key Stats gives only 3,121 TWh for hydro, which is actually only 10.65 Quads (1 Quad = 1×10^15 Btu). What we have is not a case of comparing apples and oranges, but a case of comparing the energy content of apples and oranges and multiplying the calories by three for one because, what, it has more vitamin C? Makes no sense at all. If we were using the thermal energy output of a reactor for anything other than to heat up the ocean or river or evaporate water in a cooling tower, then nuclear reactors would have two energy outputs, one kWh, the other Btu, and either could be converted into the other (using the correct conversion factor of approx. 3412 Btu/kWh) and added together. As it is, the additional heat is not used for anything and should not be included in the total. Delphi234 (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Are large thermal stores and Combined Heat and Power District Heating (CHP) with District Heating (DH) pipes to deliver heat to buildings is more likely to be a better solution to de carbonising the building heating sector than relying on large-scale electricity storage of renewable or nuclear electricity (the “all electric solution”) delivered to buildings via cable?