Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

krigus t1_ivorwxv wrote

What the hell am I looking at?

4

stoooflatooof t1_ivotasv wrote

With no sense of direction in the lines, qualifies for r/dataisugly

2

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

Replying to austeritygirlone (#483,724)

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

Training-Purpose802 t1_ivpu6s4 wrote

what caused several countries to lose renewables? River freeing, drought, decommissioned solar/wind? I would have thought most of these minor at a national scale.

1

2tim22 t1_ivpumgx wrote

From what I can tell, each series has seven dots, corresponding to 5-year increments starting at 1990. I assume time flows generally left to right...

So makes me wonder what's gone on in Portugal, Austria, France, and Italy that caused them to change their investment strategy in 1990-2005? ...or, what's with the backwards squiggles?

2

233C OP t1_ivpx2is wrote

Replying to 2tim22 (#486,030)

France had its last couple of NPP in the 90s, which "diluted" the renewable into a larger production.

Every time a non renewable plant is added, even if the renewable quantity remains the same, its share decreases.

2

Positive-Ad9508 t1_ivsrkfe wrote

It'd be better if we didn't connect the data points with a line but rather plot a trendline. This is suggesting I have multiple values of Electronic Carbon Intensity (Y) at a single value of Share of renewables in Electricity (X).

1

233C OP t1_ivss7ve wrote

Replying to Positive-Ad9508 (#491,450)

No because a trend line would suggest that the points always "move" into the same direction, which isn't always the case.

> This is suggesting I have multiple values of Electronic Carbon Intensity (Y) at a single value of Share of renewables in Electricity (X).

Which is exactly what is observed: Belgium did with less than 5%, or France did with 4-5% what Finland did with 30% or Austria and Denmark took 60% to reach.

2

insomnia_theory t1_ivt97h1 wrote

Hi, it is a good plot. Honest constructive feedback: The aesthetics could be made slightly better, layout be polished somewhat (yes even with Excel a lot btw). E.g. maybe contract the x-axis somewhat etc. But overall it is a completely logical and good idea to plot and also clearly understandable. In economics, scientists are literally interested seeing the exact impact variable x has on variable y (sometimes termed elasticity when measured as % over %). Also plotting the variables against each other like this may be called a "phase portrait", for everyone asking why to do it this way. Keep going!

1