Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Herbacult t1_ja81dzz wrote

Looks nice, really hard to read on my phone though.

16

KWNewyear t1_ja82ub7 wrote

What's going on with these borders? It looks like Illinois switched to Nuclear at the cost of Galena and half the Quad Cities.

42

MayonaiseBaron t1_ja83sag wrote

Suprised to see NH as one of the few states consistant on Nuclear. Seabrook Station has gotten so much shit since its construction, they never even finished its second reactor.

(Granddad worked for PSNH and helped with the construction)

25

dubtle t1_ja89ft7 wrote

Man, dataisbeautiful always has the ugliest comments. I think this is pretty awesome, nice job.

53

patrdesch t1_ja8am6s wrote

You took a look at those borders and thought that this was 'beautiful'? Do you have functioning eyes?

−4

[deleted] t1_ja8dpdo wrote

Despite any opinions on the graphic itself, the reduction of emissions and increasing reliance on wind in the Midwest is indeed beautiful!

113

kompootor t1_ja8emw2 wrote

Replying to KWNewyear (#2,058,556)

It looks like just a "low resolution" vector file used for the map. I'm sure the author can swap in a base map with more path points -- probably from the same source as their original map -- and recreate the graphic within a few minutes.

7

kompootor t1_ja8guih wrote

The essay page accompanying the graphic makes a nowadays too-typical optimistic pitch: Yes, the US and OECD energy sector is decreasing emissions and emissions-per-unit-GDP is dropping, but total emissions are still increasing in the OECD -- that is, our growth (in consumption and production) significantly outpaces our efficiency gains. [This was wrong when I typed it, which is why I usually link to stuff in-line and don't just go by what I remember from podcasts in November -- I'll have to make the corrections later tonight.] Among other things, this makes us look doubly hypocritical when we say to middle-income countries and India especially that they need to moderate their own pace of growth (against more expensive and slow-to-build upfront infrastructure costs that would all have to be subsidized) for the sake of CC mitigation.

2

Cbundy99 t1_ja8k2az wrote

Never knew my state used nuclear power. Neat.

4

OasisNinjaBat t1_ja8lcuk wrote

It's fascinating New England was mostly nuclear then went to Natural gas, seems like a step or 7 down

36

bigredpbun t1_ja8ltit wrote

TIL Waterpower accounts for over 60% of the total electricity generated in Canada.

63

666dna t1_ja8mk1k wrote

Is NWT switching to oil because the needs outweigh the hydro production? Or is there something fishy going on there??

1

nkj94 t1_ja8otol wrote

Why you color Natural Gas Blue and Nuclear orange

is this some kind of propaganda?

6

shpydar t1_ja8pts4 wrote

So let’s add another data set to Canada’s data to give a better understanding of the percentage of population by Province/Territory whose majority electrical power generation is from green sources as our province and territory borders are quite large but many of them have low population as the majority of Canada’s population is in a concentrated area in Southern Ontario and Southern Quebec.

Canada total = 39,292,355 (100%)
Newfoundland and Labrador = 528,818 (1.35%)
Prince Edward Island = 172,707 (0.44%)
Nova Scotia = 1,030,953 (2.62%)
New Brunswick = 820,786 (2.09%)
Quebec = 8,751,352 (22.27%)
Ontario = 15,262,660 (38.84%)
Manitoba = 1,420,228 (3.61%)
Saskatchewan = 1,205,119 (3.07%)
Alberta = 4,601,314 (11.71%)
British Columbia = 5,368,266 (13.66%)
Yukon = 43,964 (0.11%)
Northwest Territories = 45,602 (0.12%)
Nunavut = 40,586 (0.10%)

So armed with this data we can see that only 5 Provinces/Territories majority of sources of electricity are not green and when we look at percentage of population those 5 account for only 17.63% of the entire Canadian population meaning 82.37% of Canadians majority source for electrical power generation come from green sources.

And this is backed by Stats Canada who reports Canada's electrical power generation by source and the last month published (Nov. 2022) saw only 18.61% of all electrical power generated came from combustible fuels, and that includes the "Other types of electricity generation" as I can't say for certain that the energy produced was green, so it is possible it is lower than 18.61%

14

squickley t1_ja8snqw wrote

Replying to nkj94 (#2,064,333)

I caught that, too. It makes hydro and gas look related somehow. Coal and oil are black and grey, for comparison.

A better colour scheme would change: dark blue hydro, light blue wind, yellow nuclear, coral gas.

6

275MPHFordGT40 t1_ja8trij wrote

I’m surprised New Mexico’s was Coal instead of Natural Gas. The wind surprised me even more.

1

VictorChristian t1_ja8uct4 wrote

what happened in 2008 in Illinois - seems like coal took over for a short time there...

1

AardvarkAblaze t1_ja8vbnx wrote

Replying to KWNewyear (#2,058,556)

As someone from Madison, please take them back. I don't need to be driving any further to get to a dispensary. I propose we give you back what you lost, plus Rock County. It'll save Madisonians an extra 30 minutes to buy weed.

2

unfilteredcritic t1_ja8vpy9 wrote

Just Googled TN and according to the sources you list, Coal is still the largest producer of energy in the state. 🤷‍♂️

0

ybonepike t1_ja8z3ic wrote

It won't load for need in Reddit is fun app, so I opened it in Firefox and says it can't play because the file is corrupt

1

purpleinme t1_ja9jiu6 wrote

Is the UP separate from the rest of Michigan?

1

euph_22 t1_jaa72k5 wrote

What the hell map projection is that?

1

mwebster745 t1_jaacnxs wrote

Just out of curiosity, how is South Dakota getting hydro power, does it have a big damn I just don't know about?

1

bgd73 t1_jaailvh wrote

Replying to Cunninghams_right (#2,067,967)

I am in old town maine region.. 30 years. same here too. hydro poles.

whenever there is a problem.. "call hydro"

I live on an island in a river.. there is 3 hydros around me.

love the hydro.

sucks for salmon.. but when there is a 3 way merge by nature, they still have pathways.

6

SpiderFarter t1_jaajamj wrote

Interesting read in the Wall Street Journal today how the forced moved to “renewables” are bringing far more reliable power generation off line while not coming close to replacing it not even considering the move to add significant more electricity use. Not gonna end well.

0

jakenash t1_jaasbhf wrote

Wait, so Trump didn't save coal?

2

wherethebicenroam t1_jab1y7x wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,061,369)

It’s neat to see my neighbors putting more into wind energy!

Meanwhile, my more reluctant Nebraskans have that ugly ass “No More Wind Turbines” in their yards/fields.

We’ll get there..eventually. At this point, it’s a guess if we’ll legalize marijuana or be more reliant on wind first. My money is on the latter.

2

FunnyKozaru t1_jacbgx8 wrote

The upper peninsula of Michigan never changes color when the lower peninsula does. Is that a glitch?

1

Vithar t1_jaeeg3u wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,061,369)

Also, it doesn't really show well how in some states, like MN coal went from around 50% to 25% over that time frame. Yes, still biggest other than the one blip, but not as big as it was by a significant margin.

1

Sure_Monk8528 t1_jaet8i0 wrote

Replying to vtTownie (#2,079,183)

It does reduce knock though (I don't know what percentage it requires for that). It just couldn't be patented so we drove a few generations of people to unhinged criminality instead.

2