I like the idea here; I agree that 'averages' are abused. Somehow similar to everyone believing that they have above average driving skills. However it seems that in using a km/person/day value 66% greater than the average, the calculations later regarding necessary energy production are all suspect (because the total production is simply averaged to a kwh/person/day value). Considering how large a portion of our energy is used by cars, this choice is significant.

Now why is this nearly 50% increase over the value quoted in the text tucked into the endnotes? If the text were emphasizing how great a cost this was, the end notes might be appropriate. However, the text main point is that it is a smaller 'subsidy' than that given wind generation.

Once again I cannot help but feel that MacKay is promoting nuclear power, in spite of his own numbers. Firstly, his own endnote indicates that this £2 bn/year for 25 years is 50% too low. Now he returns to the subject claiming that the 'lion's share' is for military clean up. This article (www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/utilities/2793052/Washington-Group-wins-Sellafield-clean-up-contract.html) indicates that while the majority of the total waste is military in origin, it accounts for only about 20% of the total cost.