Has to be those frozen wind turbines and solar panels... - eviltoast
  • a9cx34udP4ZZ0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    The map is just bad? They’re throwing large groups of states together that have literally no control over what other states do. For instance, it groups part of North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois together as if they’re one giant blob and then saying they’re only 10% renewable and 31% “low carbon” (whatever that means).

    A quick look at Illinois shows it’s 55% nuclear and 21.6% renewables for a grand total of 76% of their power being carbon free. Minnesota is 41% renewable, 25.3% nuclear, for a grand total of 66% carbon free electricity. Iowa is 90% (!!!) renewables. Even Wisconsin is 20% nuclear and 15.6% renewables.

    https://www.eia.gov/state/data.php?sid=MN

    https://www.eia.gov/state/data.php?sid=IL

    https://www.eia.gov/state/data.php?sid=WI

    https://www.eia.gov/state/data.php?sid=IA

    However this map is being generated, it appears to be absolute garbage and intentionally skewed, and isn’t basing any of this on any logic. It can’t be based on population served or on size of ground covered.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      what is it even trying to demonstrate? Doesn’t the US have three primary grids? The east, west, and texas?

      Surely this is wrong? I guess the idea is to demonstate across state/country lines, but like, why? Who cares!

    • tyler@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      They’re based on the grid operators in these regions I think, but it still looks incorrect to me.

      And Colorado has a significant amount of renewables as well so something is really off with the numbers here.