Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

st4n13l t1_izgq4vt wrote

Any reason you chose green as the middle and red as the high end of positive. Generally green would indicate positive and red would indicate negative. Considering this is for renewable energy, it would make even more sense to have green be the high end.

18

Time_Crystals OP t1_izguer1 wrote

>Any reason you chose green as the middle and red as the high end of positive.

Short answer: Basically I needed a lot of range.

Longer answer: I needed something bright for the low end and something with a wide range visually for the middle parts. Kansas was in a league of it's own in many ways. So basically anything with a green tint at all that wasn't completely yellow had a positive gain. For example, Washington State was -16%, Idaho was -24%, and Montana was +13%.

Hopefully that makes sense.

1

-domi- t1_izgwnbd wrote

Are we looking at different graphics? The one I'm looking at ranges from -0.4 (percent, presumably?) to +21, with the later applying only to Kansas, and most of everything being a pretty uniform tan.

10

Time_Crystals OP t1_izgwveg wrote

Yeah I could have made the graphic more clear. That -.39 is -39%, therefore the 21 is +2100%

5

-domi- t1_izgwzcl wrote

Thank you for clarifying that!

1

tayt087x t1_izhlj51 wrote

You gotta learn some color theory. You basically made.a scale from 2-3 with 1 in the middle.

4

Mindless-Range-7764 t1_izh7sfg wrote

As someone who is red-green colorblind, thank you for using this shaded scale. It is very easy to see and understand the map.

10

Time_Crystals OP t1_izhnt8e wrote

Great to hear! The value scale makes more sense to me than a simple "color scale," in many cases in my opinion.

1

bearsnchairs t1_izhimn3 wrote

You’re saying most states has less renewable energy now compared to 1990? What is your data set?

8

-o__________o- t1_izht2f8 wrote

I had the same thought. But the “middle” is not 0. The middle is actually a gain of probably around +10.3635% ((21.125 - .398)/2). I think 🤣. So really that above 0 mark is closer to a beige color.

3

Time_Crystals OP t1_izhocxi wrote

>You’re saying most states has less renewable energy now compared to 1990? What is your data set?

Nope. Most have more. The data set is from U.S. Energy Information Administration
State Energy Data System (SEDS).

−3

bearsnchairs t1_izhwdsx wrote

This color scheme is horrendous by the way. The random middle line looks the same as the low end.

3

AssymmetricalEagle t1_izi69g8 wrote

Ok so California has less renewable energy now than it did in 1990, this seems like a totally real thing that happened. Date may be beautiful but I don’t think yours is accurate

2

Time_Crystals OP t1_izk1f51 wrote

Nope, it actually has 104% more. If you look closely, there is a slight green tint to it.

1

Puzzleheaded-Island2 t1_j08w3yw wrote

Less percentage increase in renewable from 90 to 2020 I think, mainly because California has been using wind turbines since late 80s or maybe before that

1

Rabbitsatemycheese t1_izgv5xf wrote

One thing that I am proud of. Texas really does renewable well. Even if our dipshit governor blames frozen windmills for power blackouts during winter weather. Energy is in the private sector and Texas is good at Energy and not just hydrocarbons. Too many smart people here to let that go. Too bad yokals still outnumber us in this huge state. Soon purple texas....Texas..... soon.

1

Time_Crystals OP t1_izgwpkn wrote

Well... sort of. This is the percent change. So TX still has a low percentage of renewables. That said, it's better than some other places and for its size it's decent thanks to some of the companies you mentioned (NRG I think).

1

PlantsMcSoil t1_izhudjg wrote

So most of the country is falling behind?

1

Time_Crystals OP t1_izhwi7h wrote

On average, states have about 20% renewable usage in 2020... so in my opinion yes.

1

dreamofphilodendron t1_izk7p50 wrote

Why does the scale start at negative 0.398? And why did so many states have that negative change in renewable energy usage?

1

FalseTank27 t1_izl98g0 wrote

A little bit confusing why the state like California and the likes who are for renewable energy are not doing well? Or am I reading it incorrect?

1

Time_Crystals OP t1_izlchml wrote

Well I would say that it's important to consider the fact that California is huge and uses lots of energy and also that they started at a higher rate than many states.

2

FalseTank27 t1_izlp4al wrote

Very interesting to see this. Surprised but cool info as well.

1