Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Alternative-Sea-6238 t1_iz92nxj wrote

Thing is, if the base number is small, it is a heck of a lot easier to achieve a significant increase to a less small number, than to start with a big number and achieve a small increase.

8

hcrx OP t1_iz92vgw wrote

It is true. Still, there are the top 10 and the increases are in percentage points. So even if you start from 0, going to 70% (like Luxembourg) is impressive.

3

Alternative-Sea-6238 t1_iz93cqo wrote

My point is, taken in isolation this data can be very misleading. If Luxembourg previously only had 1% of their energy from renewable sources and increased to 1.7% (70% increase), they would have the same place on the chart, but who would give them kudos for 98.3% non-renewable energy?

4

ollafy t1_iz95kmb wrote

That still doesn’t mean the graph is bad. I see this kind of thinking in this subreddit all the time and it’s killing me inside. If you were to write an article about the changes that occurred this year in renewable, this graph could easily be there mixed in with multiple others as well. You’d have one that was just raw numbers by wattage and maybe a few breakdowns by type of energy. There’s nothing misleading about this graph. It says it’s relative and that’s what it delivered.

5

Alternative-Sea-6238 t1_iz9swrw wrote

Didn't say the graph was bad. Just that taken in isolation it can be misleading. Also, I apparently misinterpreted the title - I have replied to OP on this. Basically, OP says it * isn't* relative, it's absolute. Despite the title.

1

hcrx OP t1_iz9hby9 wrote

Again, the chart is in absolute percentage points increase, not in %. So if Luxembourg had gone from 1% to 1.7% it would have increased by 0.7 p.p and would not have made it to the top 10.

2

Alternative-Sea-6238 t1_iz9sko7 wrote

Ah, I misunderstood then. The word relative in the title of the post made me interpret the data as being relative percentage points, not absolute. My bad, I suppose.

3

hcrx OP t1_iz9sqa0 wrote

Got it, I see the confusion. Shouldn't have added the word relative there. Clear, thanks!

3