Thomas, I really don't understand your repeated comments regarding the use of the BP data set. You want Robert to use a final energy consumption based analysis. He used a primary energy consumption based analysis. Clearly both are quite valid means of analysis. If you want to repeat his analysis using a different data set, and see how it changes (or if it changes) his conclusions, please do so in another article. We would love to publish that at TEC.
However, its a perfectly valid method to convert energy sources to primary energy equivalents, so as to compare BTUs on a roughly equal basis. A BTU of potential energy locked up in a carbon-carbon bond is clearly less valuable than a BTU of heat, which in turn is less valuable than a BTU of electricity or a horsepower of motive force, which in turn is less valuable than a BTU of focused energy in a laser, etc. Second law of thermodynamics and all that. So analysis that compares BTUs on a final enery consumption basis in essence treats a BTU of electricity as equal to a BTU of high pressure steam as equal to a BTU of low-grade heat etc. This is fine for some purposes, but there are clear reasons why an analyst might prefer to take a different approach in other cases: e.g. to convert all values back to primary energy terms, which means accounting for conversion efficiencies etc. The trick then is how to deal with things like nuclear and renewables, which don't consume carbon-carbon bonds like most other fuels. In this case, many analysts will convert a BTU of final energy as renewable electricity to an equivalent BTUs of carbon-based combustion energy at a typical combustion efficiency level. This is clearly an approximation, but its a well accepted effort to get things into apples to apples terms.
So please, if you want to focus on different analytic methods, go ahead and show us why one method versus another really matters, rather than insinuate that BP's statistical review -- a widely cited data source -- is bogus or nefariously trying to make one fuel look better than another, simply because it is published by an oil and gas company. At the Energy Collective, you've got to go beyond making guilty-by-association type arguments like that.
Digital Community Strategist