I'd love to see the second source of electricity also, and how far behind the first it is.

Nuclear power generation needs to go away. The strife in Ukraine should have proven this to most of the world.

"strife in Ukraine" aka war. Why should we eliminate nuclear power generation as opposed to dictators and autocracy?

Because the next dictator could decide to go ahead with blowing up your N-plant. Then where the fuck are you?

Every other source of power generation can be neutralized as well

Who is talking about neutralization? It's a nuclear bomb in your backyard.

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.

Your logic is an example of how mind fucked you are.

Nuclear fission = bad. It needs to stop.

Excellent rebuttal

Nah we need more of it, if anything!

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.

We are sooo fucked.

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.

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.

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.

Do tell. I'm looking forward to learning how you would deal with nuclear waste.

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.

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?

This is somewhat misleading because in many cases the “top source” is still much less than 50% of the energy mix.

That’s not misleading; top source is largest share, majority would be >50%.

You know Russia has nukes right? If they want a region to be unlivable for centuries they can already do that.

As a Tennessean I would have not guessed nuclear. But Go Vols!

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?

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.

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.

If we get rid of nuclear, yes

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.

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.

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.

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.

[removed]