The author is diligent in showing his work, both in the mathematical sense and in the links to sources so that his numbers can be confirmed. However, he still bases his own arguments using that data on very specific assumptions. The first of these is that all the technologies would have to be compared on a utility basis, that is to say, tied into the existing utility distribution grid. The simple fact that the grid exists to connect power supplies at Point A to consumers at Point B incurs losses from long range transmission, maintenance of lines and towers, and the manufacture of replacement parts. The impact of off-grid solar, wind, hydro and other renewable power sources in the form of reduced demand, utility buybacks, or even the overhauling of today's aging infrastructure in favor of some model of "smart grid" is not examined. Thus a false dichotomy is created where solar and wind must be scaled up well past the points of diminishing returns in their present designs rather than being allowed to play to their own strengths.
This false dichotomy occurs throughout the book: Hydroelectric power and dams are considered equivalent, but low head and micro-hydro systems don't need a massive reservoir. The speed the turbines reach is a function of the speed of the water - using the force of gravity and the pressure of a large reservoir is just one solution among many. The section on bio fuels and fossil fuels studiously ignores one of the key reasons fossil fuels became so useful in the first place (their portability) and using the same baseline for a central utility plant ignores the very important economic impact of vehicles and motorized transport even while complaining about vehicles greenhouse gas emissions. It defies belief that the author didn't know at that point he was comparing apples and oranges.
The most exasperating problem with the arguments made, though, are the arguments that would have supported the author's position but never came up. Wind farms have an issue with birds being killed by the rotating blades - this is both a strike against their position as an environmentally friendly power source and an ongoing addition to the costs of maintenance. I could not find any mention of this, often called a "hidden cost" of wind power, anywhere in the text. This is just one of several omissions that raise the question of just how thorough the author's research was.
The author did such a bad job making his case that when I started reading his book I was overwhelming in support of Thorium based nuclear power, but by the time I got to the section where he extolls its virtues, I found myself doubting both my sources and my judgement. After some rigorous double checking, my confidence is restored, but the fact remains that the author managed to completely undermine his core message in an attempt to present it as a superior option. That doesn't happen often outside of satire and parody, and I believe the author was earnestly serious instead of satirical. If he had just compared existing reactor costs and risks with those projected for various thorium reactor designs, he could have made his point easily enough. Instead, he had to take pot shots at other technologies, drawing inaccurate comparisons and undermining his credibility in doing so. This in turn undermined the credibility of the position he endorsed.
As a valid argument for or against any given power system, this book is almost useless. It is, however, available for free as of this writing, and so I recommend it highly as an example of how not to compare competing ideas.
(review of free book)