Off Shore Wind is coming so the coasts will look like the middle by 2030.

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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).

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

Thank you for clarifying that!

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

Okay, what happened in Kansas?

We have lots of flat empty space and wind.

[removed]

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

Tons of wind turbines are being put out

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

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

>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).

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.

So most of the country is falling behind?

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

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

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

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

Actually that would be +1000%! The numbers are crazy.

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

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?

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.

Fukn wimdy

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

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