Submitted by MrMike t3_zq6ayd in dataisbeautiful
Comments
RoastedRhino t1_j0z445j wrote
There is 1000x more information here, if anyone is interested.
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
Including CO2 intensity, difference between the production mix and consumption mix (because energy is transferred between states) and historical data.
anonkitty2 t1_j0x24ar wrote
This is prettier than the chart on the Kansas reddit forum. Bright green for Kansas, and Virginia is a whole state in natural gas slate.
guyfromtn t1_j0xnx6b wrote
As a Tennessean I would have not guessed nuclear. But Go Vols!
SnowOnVenus t1_j0yp557 wrote
Is it generated, used, or both? I suppose you probably have a country wide (or bigger) electricity grid, the proportions are likely not balanced per state in either metric?
[deleted] t1_j2bgpw6 wrote
[removed]
noiamholmstar t1_j0xapir wrote
This is somewhat misleading because in many cases the “top source” is still much less than 50% of the energy mix.
vtTownie t1_j0xb80z wrote
That’s not misleading; top source is largest share, majority would be >50%.
noiamholmstar t1_j0za314 wrote
Right, but focusing on “top share” misses a lot of detail. You could have one state where the the majority is renewables, but no single renewable category exceeds coal, so coal is listed. And you could have another that gets 90% of its energy from coal, and on this diagram they both look the same. That’s what I mean by misleading. It’s technically correct but it’s only part of the truth.
vtTownie t1_j0zefja wrote
That wasn’t the point of the map though. That’s a totally different measure if you’re comparing fossil fuels to renewables. This was by generation source. None of this is misleading, you’re just wanting to look at something completely different.
noiamholmstar t1_j0zhaes wrote
It’s taking a single data point out of context of the broader picture. That’s fair criticism of the way that data is being presented. If the map also showed the percentage for the largest share, then I would have no issue with it.
vtTownie t1_j0zho5o wrote
It’s literally “largest source of energy in every state.” It shows exactly what it is claiming to depict. You’re wanting it to show something different than what it does depict. You’re dense as hell.
noiamholmstar t1_j0zlm7l wrote
I agree that it shows what it states, but focusing on that is of very limited value without additional information. You might be condescending as hell and consider that beautiful, but I don’t.
haz3lnut t1_j0wsiqc wrote
Nuclear power generation needs to go away. The strife in Ukraine should have proven this to most of the world.
st4n13l t1_j0wwl3b wrote
"strife in Ukraine" aka war. Why should we eliminate nuclear power generation as opposed to dictators and autocracy?
haz3lnut t1_j0wws57 wrote
Because the next dictator could decide to go ahead with blowing up your N-plant. Then where the fuck are you?
st4n13l t1_j0wyedi wrote
Every other source of power generation can be neutralized as well
haz3lnut t1_j0wz1r0 wrote
Who is talking about neutralization? It's a nuclear bomb in your backyard.
st4n13l t1_j0wzip7 wrote
Creating a nuclear disaster in another country is the same as dropping a nuclear bomb. Considering Russia has plenty of them, not having nuclear energy doesn't prevent this type of disaster but certainly hamstrings your ability to produce clean energy.
haz3lnut t1_j0wzv2f wrote
Your logic is an example of how mind fucked you are.
Nuclear fission = bad. It needs to stop.
st4n13l t1_j0x1bea wrote
Excellent rebuttal
haz3lnut t1_j0x1qeh wrote
There is nothing clean about nuclear fission. You cannot ignore the waste, which no one has figured out how to deal with it. It's piling up in tons with no solution.
snowfoxsean t1_j0x2f1t wrote
Nuclear waste is much easier to deal with than carbon waste, actually. There's just so much carbon waste and it goes up in the air.
haz3lnut t1_j0x2o36 wrote
Do tell. I'm looking forward to learning how you would deal with nuclear waste.
snowfoxsean t1_j0x2ygy wrote
The most obvious way is to bury it deep underground. The next best way is just to store it for now. Either way it's not that big of a deal to manage, because there just isn't that much of it.
juridiculous t1_j0x1ft0 wrote
Nah we need more of it, if anything!
haz3lnut t1_j0x1vs4 wrote
We are sooo fucked.
Artistic-Boss2665 t1_j0zciie wrote
If we get rid of nuclear, yes
snowfoxsean t1_j0x2nda wrote
What exactly did 'strife in Ukraine' prove? To my knowledge that haven't been any leaks of nuclear material in any of the plants there.
haz3lnut t1_j0x4ppk wrote
If the Russians blow up a nat gas plant, we're without power for a while. If they blow up a nuclear plant, the region is unlivable for centuries. Why is this equation so hard for people?
snowfoxsean t1_j0xjc8d wrote
You know Russia has nukes right? If they want a region to be unlivable for centuries they can already do that.
pablo_the_bear t1_j0wp92u wrote
I'd love to see the second source of electricity also, and how far behind the first it is.