Hacker News Reader

Comment by trzeci | Hacker News Reader

This page shows that some countries produce electric power in cleaner way than other. This projects only one point of view, and congratulations for countries that are shifting towards green sources.

But, title is misleading: This map doesn't show consumption or total production.

Moreover an option "Show wind" emphasis that countries with less green electricity poison other countries. Which is false. From this map it looks that Europe suffers from Estonia and Poland being there. If we'll consider total production from http://world.bymap.org/ElectricityProduction.html we have following data:

- Estonia: 12900000 (tons / year)

- Poland: 108750000 (tons / year)

- Germany: 228717000 (tons / year)

Without having total numbers there, my feeling is that this page tries to manipulate.

View on HN

Hi @trzeci,

Author of the electricityMap here. The point of the app is to display how much CO2 is emitted when you consume from your power plug (hence the consumption point of view, and hence why we emphasise intensity and not volume). We're trying to give people an idea of when it is the best time to consume electricity, and what strategies are best to decarbonise rapidly.

Total volumes are also interesting (the climate cares about total volumes), but if you want to look at strategies you have to look at per kWh values (coal in a small volume is still a bad strategy).

- Olivier

I'm a bit confused with estonia, from all what I know - Oil is "cleaner" than lignite, why is the value so high for Estonia? just as one example showing emissons of oil vs coal: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d666/1a01ee6a54f86fad283e46...

See https://github.com/tmrowco/electricitymap-contrib/blob/maste...

- Olivier

I think using a 10 years old figure if the same table shows that there are reductions to be expected is not perfect.

https://envir.ee/sites/default/files/kpp_energiajulgeoleku_u...

has 1170g/kwh as value. While it might also not the "right" value it probably is closer to reality.

Don't get me wrong, I really like the page and what you did and being myself tangentially involved with the european energy market I know how hard it is to get good values for all the different countries as emissions differ on a per powerplant basis even with same fuel type and even when all the specs are identical because their load profiles are different.

You are completely right. We are trying to get some funding to start an initiative to update emission factors per country. This is important.

- Olivier

Estonia's oil is not normal petroleum, but surface mined oil shale. It is just as bad or worse than Alberta's tar sand in that regard.

Are there any efforts in Estonia to move to renewables from their petrol fired generation?

The high CO2 emission comes from the mineral content of the oil shale. Since the oil shale has to be heated to 1100C, the emissions include a significant amount of CO2 from CaCO3 → CaO + CO2.

Isn't per capita the best measure?

Someone going from pure electric heating to heat pump for instance, thus reducing electricity usage for same utility, that should count as greener

Hi Olivier!

I love that you want to help people understand carbon consumption. Some points:

1. Volume, not intensity, warms the globe. 2. If you have "no data available" for China, Saudi Arabia, Texas, ... you are missing a plurality of emissions. 3. As I write just after sunrise in California, it shows reddish. California is also, at the decade scale (the scale that matters) a leader in de-carbonizing.

You are measuring the wrong things and showing them in the wrong way to achieve your worthy purpose. I believe you should start over.

Respectfully, Sam

I disagree. Nations are kind of arbitrary from this perspective. Physics doesn't care about the lines we put on our maps.

Per capita is better, but the best statistic is probably per capita weighted by GDP per capita and other indices of development. This would show the most efficient countries that are getting the most value for the least emissions.

Here's a pure GDP list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_...

The top ones seem like they could be outliers due to some distorting economic effect (e.g. huge exports and low per capita GDP) but among them you have the familiar European nations that are often cited as models of good governance: Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, etc. The USA is toward the middle of the pack. China is near the bottom.

This matters more because it shows the politically reasonable path that we might take, and because more development usually correlates with lower birth rates. Any path that reduces development will tend to increase birth rates, negating any benefit. The development / birth rate correlation holds across cultures, religions, and ethnic groups. (I find the fact that it holds even in majority conservative Muslim and Catholic countries surprising, but it does.)

CO2 per kWh focuses purely on the issue of attained performance of electricity production - which is the main matter for production technology to concentrate on.

Dividing by GDP flatters the view of wealthier nations, and GDP itself is not a real measure of wealth or benefit to self and others. The purely technical measure of CO2 per kWh avoids argument of who is most/least beneficial by examining where production is performing best.

We need to get rid of GDP as a measure of progress. There are better measures like genuine progress Indicator. A measure that improves with pollution, disease and war must not be used for the sake of all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com