4 ms·

I think the visualization is misleading, it seems to highlight energy mix rather than absolute numbers. eg Poland looks bad but Germany burns twice the amount o

by rb808 10y ago

I think the visualization is misleading, it seems to highlight energy mix rather than absolute numbers. eg Poland looks bad but Germany burns twice the amount of coal that Poland does. (Per head of population its probably about the same) Germany looks better because it has some other sources mixed in there.

greendesk 10y ago
I think showing the mix of energy sources is also insightful. Germany has spent a lot of effort into diversifying and upgrading their energy system. Meanwhile, Poland is lagging in investment and relying almost exclusively on one piece of energy source. This piece of knowledge is also insightful.
- renaudg 10y ago
  > Germany has spent a lot of effort into diversifying and upgrading their energy system Evidently the outcome is still nothing to be proud of, especially considering the country's wealth and claim of leadership in environmental policy. It simply was too early to phase out nuclear power when they (slightly stubbornly) decided to do so.
masklinn 10y ago
> it seems to highlight energy mix It's literally a visualisation of how green the country's energy policy is (electricity production sources), the color coding is gCO2/kWh. > rather than absolute numbers Absolute numbers would mostly just track population, that's way more misleading as a small country with sparse population but 100% hydrocarbon energy production would appear greener than a large country with dense population on 10% hydrocarbon energy sources. An other interesting visualisation would be per-capita as it would include consumption patterns rather than just production ones > Poland looks bad but Germany burns twice the amount of coal that Poland does. (Per head of population its probably about the same) Poland would still look bad, it has 40% of Germany's population, and according to the site's sources currently produces 15.5GWh from coal while Germany is at 23.4GWh from Coal, that's 65% more coal-sourced electricity per capita than Germany. And the map is live and it's winter hence the low levels of e.g. solar in countries with large solar capacity (like Belgium, or Austria,… or Germany)
- machiaweliczny 10y ago
  Your calculations are wrong: Population: 38.53 / 80.63 ~= 47,7% More coal sourced: 15.5 / 0.477 / 23.4 ~= 38.8% 38.8% vs 65% makes a difference
  - masklinn 10y ago
    > Your calculations are wrong: > 38.8% vs 65% makes a difference No, it does not according to your number Poland still uses almost 40% more coal per capita than Germany, meaning it still looks bad if you switch to that metric.
trzeci 10y ago
This is what I thought as well. Adding a wind to this visualization touches a manipulation. In current data it makes no sense, and when we conciser absolute numbers (or even number/capita) it doesn't look so bad. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/CO2_per_capita_per_country.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/CO2_per_...

by rb808 10y ago

greendesk 10y ago

I think showing the mix of energy sources is also insightful. Germany has spent a lot of effort into diversifying and upgrading their energy system. Meanwhile, Poland is lagging in investment and relying almost exclusively on one piece of energy source. This piece of knowledge is also insightful.

renaudg 10y ago
> Germany has spent a lot of effort into diversifying and upgrading their energy system Evidently the outcome is still nothing to be proud of, especially considering the country's wealth and claim of leadership in environmental policy. It simply was too early to phase out nuclear power when they (slightly stubbornly) decided to do so.

masklinn 10y ago

> it seems to highlight energy mix It's literally a visualisation of how green the country's energy policy is (electricity production sources), the color coding is gCO2/kWh. > rather than absolute numbers Absolute numbers would mostly just track population, that's way more misleading as a small country with sparse population but 100% hydrocarbon energy production would appear greener than a large country with dense population on 10% hydrocarbon energy sources. An other interesting visualisation would be per-capita as it would include consumption patterns rather than just production ones > Poland looks bad but Germany burns twice the amount of coal that Poland does. (Per head of population its probably about the same) Poland would still look bad, it has 40% of Germany's population, and according to the site's sources currently produces 15.5GWh from coal while Germany is at 23.4GWh from Coal, that's 65% more coal-sourced electricity per capita than Germany. And the map is live and it's winter hence the low levels of e.g. solar in countries with large solar capacity (like Belgium, or Austria,… or Germany)

machiaweliczny 10y ago
Your calculations are wrong: Population: 38.53 / 80.63 ~= 47,7% More coal sourced: 15.5 / 0.477 / 23.4 ~= 38.8% 38.8% vs 65% makes a difference
- masklinn 10y ago
  > Your calculations are wrong: > 38.8% vs 65% makes a difference No, it does not according to your number Poland still uses almost 40% more coal per capita than Germany, meaning it still looks bad if you switch to that metric.

trzeci 10y ago

This is what I thought as well. Adding a wind to this visualization touches a manipulation. In current data it makes no sense, and when we conciser absolute numbers (or even number/capita) it doesn't look so bad. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/CO2_per_capita_per_country.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/CO2_per_...