Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

austeritygirlone t1_ivoti83 wrote

I think the major problem with the chart is the fact the the chronological development cannot properly be read. There is a connection between the dots that suggests the temporal connection. But the direction is mostly unclear.

Also why did you choose to plot these two variables against each other. The strong negative correlation is expected. There are exemptions, but it's hard to tell when they occurred for a country. And then, is this interesting at all?

11

233C OP t1_ivovh9a wrote

I should have marked each "start" differently". although (low renewable; high CO2) is a fair guess for a starting point.

> The strong negative correlation is expected.

As can be seen, some countries managed the same gCO2/kWh with much lower % renewable than others.

The "common wisdom" of "let's add more renewable and gCO2/kWh will lower" is worth checking up.
What good did it do Belgium to go from 2 to 25%?
France did without moving from 4-5% what Finland did from 22 to 50%.
Denmark and Austria are nearing 75% and still can't touch what France already had with less than 20%.
Would Argentina (less than 10%) will have a better gCO2/kWh if it had as much renewable as Turkey (45%)? Maybe not

3

mgmaqueda t1_ivp58id wrote

I think those differences could mostly be explained with the share of nuclear in electricity for each country.

2