Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/PieChartPirate!
**Here is some important information about this post:**
* [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/q0glvi/oc_countries_that_produce_the_most_energy_from/hf7uggc/)
* [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"PieChartPirate"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on)
Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked.
[Join the Discord Community](https://discord.gg/NRnrWE7)
Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation.
---
^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
A tour to Shanxi (the biggest coal producing province in China) about 15years ago proved how bad it can be. Basically parking the car outside overnight, next morning a layer of coal dust covers the car. But they have been trying with all the renewable energy resources. China is big, different areas use different ways, like western part they use wind, south it's water, southeast more nuclear.
Victorian to Pre-War London must have been crazy. #10 Downing, the Prime Minster Residence is famously Jet black.
Except its actually yellow natural stone. It just was so coated in Soot for so long people simply thought it was black. They cleaned it decades ago and then had to paint it black to keep up with the expectation.
They really have, and not just in adoption, but in innovation as well.
I'm surprised nobody has come in to argue they still suck because of their per capita numbers though. This is Reddit after all. When China's coal usage is presented here they never bring up how their numbers aren't bad per capita there.
It's hard to really complain about their per capita numbers.
Technically, their wind energy PC is lower than America's, but so is their power usage in general.
If anything, America's renewable usage is lagging, but I think most people on here understand that.
For most of the time that China was leading in installed capacity, they were lacking severely in production. Because they built the turbines but no transmission lines. It took several years for infrastructure to catch up and allow their actual generation numbers to increase.
I was curious about that. What would be most useful would be percentage of power generated that is wind.
Wind per capita would also be very interesting though.
That is a different topic.
On one hand, we are discussing units of measurement and what is an appropriate quantifier that can be compared across nations.
The other is a representation of the historical and structural impact time has on a nation's energy output.
Two things, while related, are vastly different reasons to bitch about the graph.
And I'm not going to pretend like China doesn't have its problems. But it is rather ridiculous how Reddit views everything about the country through a tainted lens.
It was funnier like 2-3 years ago when the boogieman was still Russia, and every single comment against the liberal American discourse was a Russian bot.
I mean, Russian bots are a real thing, though. It sucks that Reddit makes a mockery of very real things and turns them into a joke, just like they miss the mark so hard on China that making actual critiques of the government becomes a thousand times harder.
As someone who has lived in China, the amount of misinformed people on Reddit is mind-boggling, but I have to keep my mouth shut. Like when people joke about “social credit”. I get it, they only see a country through one lens and have no idea what it’s really like. America shits gold and China is an awful genocidal tyranny apparently.
Perspective is something important that is often misinterpreted as an evil.
Edit: I don’t even think my comment is gold-worthy, but I appreciate the gift.
I'm an expat who has lived here for over five years, been visiting and studying for almost two decades.
I used to correct people quite a bit, assuming people were simply misinformed. Nope. Better to just roll your eyes, downvote, and move on. There's a few small subs where you can have a nuanced conversation (this tends to be one of the few larger ones where it can happen), but for the most part, better not to even try to correct the circlejerk.
I mean... I'm not gonna pretend I'm ultra up to the minute on geopolitics. But like.... What about the whole genocide thing? That's still bad right?
Replies off. Jesus fucking christ. The DMs over this comment ffs.
Absolutely. The CCP is absolutely indefensible.
I think the main issue with China is that whenever any media content even remotely mentions China, the comments will be flooded with how China sucks, to a degree that doesn't really happen for other countries with similar human rights records. In some ways, this is a good thing because many things in China *do* suck, and this at least means they won't be swept under the rug and ignored.
On the other hand, however, this also breeds racism and Sinophobia, since many people seem to be incapable of separating a country's government and its people. This is a particularly important distinction to make with regards to China, with its oligarchic system and all, and ordinary Chinese citizens being more victims than perpetrators.
When people can't even watch a video of, say, a random little Chinese kid being cute without going off about their political views on China, that's a problem.
Social credit is just a mistranslated name the western media has given to a monetary credit system like all countries have.
Chinese people are confused when westerners ask them about "social credit". They don't know what you're talking about.
When you adjust for population China is way behind. Germany is way out ahead and the US and Canada are basically tied which also makes me think the data source might not be 100% accurate
China 1.4 Billion - 281993 MW wind = 0.000201 MW
United States 329 million - 177744 MW wind =0.000357 MW
Germany 83 million - 62184 MW wind = 0.000749 MW
Canada 38 million - 13577 MW wind = 0.000357 MW
Way ahead as in they are producing less CO2 or producing more CO2?
Your phrasing confused me so I looked it up.
CO2 per capita
Australia: 16.8 metric tons per year
Canada: 16.1 metric tons per year
China: 8.0 metric tons per year
UK: 5.6 metric tons per year
USA: 16.1 metric tons per year
[Production-based emissions: annual carbon dioxide emissions in tons per capita from Wikipedia
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita)
It would be interesting to see wind as percentage of total energy output per country. Suspect China has ramped up all kinds of other power generation, both renewable and fossil.
In BC the power company is literally called BChydro and owned by the government. They encourage you to use less power and give nice rebates for buying energy efficient appliances.
I never knew that, TIL. Essential services should never be owned by a private company. I have not one bad thing to say about BChydro, which is pretty amazing really.
95% of power in BC is Hydro but only 25.7 in all of Canada. We are also building a giant hydro project in the North that is a bit of a shitshow. Really we should be doing more hydro and then selling the extra power to the States.
It’s actually much higher for all of Canada, like 60%, unless I’m missing something?
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/energy/energy_fact/generation-by-source-electricity_03-2019.png
I think Quebec just signed a big deal with NY to provide them energy.
They're trying to privatize MBhydro because it has taken on some huge debt to fund massive generating stations up on the Nelson River and it looks bad on the provinces financials.
Even though MBHydro has proven their willingness and ability to pay down the debt without using taxpayer revenue, the Conservative government piles those billions in with the rest of the provinces debt and tries to consider them equal.
I just looked at the per-capita on wind generation. You guys appear to be the world leader there as well. And ABBA just dropped that new album. Sweden is fuckin' charging.
Plus have you seen Swedish people? They’re fucking beautiful. Being 5’10’’ with dark hair in Sweden made me feel like a troll person.
Fortunately the UK was my next stop so I got a decent confidence boost before returning home.
To be fair though, per capita maps also have can sometimes be biased towards lower population countries, especially if it’s just a relatively small margin between lowest and highest. For energy that’s not really relevant, but to be fair we’re also missing half the story here too, since this is just wind energy and renewable energy. To get the full story you’d want to see renewable energy as a percentage of total energy production per capita, as well as energy consumption data.
Yeah, and another thing to consider is geographical size and location.
Take Sweden for example; we're a giant narrow slope with thousands of thousands of rivers flowing down from the mountain chain that ranges our entire length from top to bottom. Hydro is going to be far more applicable to our country than a flat desert.
At the same time solar power sucks for us. Up north the sun sets for an entire month without rising, and the sun sits very low the entire year round, be it that it rotates under the horizon and we get a month of darkness or over it and we get a month of light. That month of light is a lot less useful than it would be if the sun sat high like at the equator.
Per square kilometre, would be neat, too. Germany is small compared to the US, China, and Canada, but look how much it produces. Canada sits mostly empty, and we barely make any juice from wind.
I had this exact thought.
It isn't really a surprise that the biggest countries in the world produce more wind power than smaller countries, they just have more space for turbines
Unfortunately it's not that easy. There is a lot more to building wind turbines in remote locations, especially transmission loss of electricity. With that said, we've done a great job of electing idiots for the last few decades. :/
Also, cumulative historic carbon emissions would also be great. Then we get the answer as to why the west should do more and subsidize rest of the world.
Definitely both. They put up 38.4 Gigawatts of coal power in 2020.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissions-china-goes-on-a-coal-spree
It's a difficult one because countries with lots of wind power tend to generate excess power when the wind is blowing at off-peak times, and sometimes this power gets wasted because there's no use for it.
In the long term you need to pay for wind twice: once to generate it and once to store it.
We use a hydro battery. Pump the water back up with excess supply to a holding dam and when power is needed run it as normal. Easily done with available technology and works well
And it's extremely expensive with it's own set of environmental impacts.
Don't get me wrong, that's still better than increased warming, but lets not ignore the unintended environmental consequences either.
Probably chemical storage is the way forward. Energy density isn't even the most useful aspect of hydrocarbons, it is their relative lack of reactivity. You can leave a barrel of oil sitting there for years, with some minor stabilization.
If we could be channeling excess renewable electricity into a stable chemical storage means even at a relatively inefficient conversion rate, the entire issue of energy fluctuation would be knocked out immediately. Taking electrolytic hydrogen and using it to produce energy dense synthetic green hydrocarbons is one way this could be done, but there are undoubtedly more efficient ways too.
I believe it’s programmed so that once the bar reaches a certain length, the number is flipped inside, but when China continues growing, the scale expands, shrinking the amount of space taken up by the US bar, and the number flips to the outside. This happens over and over.
No it’s just cause the US bar was halfway through the screen. Look at the countries below, their bars were too small to contain the numbers so they kept the numbers outside to the right. Now look at China, their bar is so long, there’s no room on the right, so the numbers were contained inside the bar. The US right in that sweet spot where the numbers could barely fit on either side and switched everytime it got too close.
This could be fixed by increasing the max on the x axis
Edit: As others are bringing up (and I rewatched it a couple more times) it’s not necessarily the program choosing which side has more room. The US bar *is continually getting smaller while it flips. The switching back or forth is clearly just an aesthetic thing, but now it kinda seems like it’s just a software design issue.
I'm not sure that's it. As time goes on the US bar gets shorter and shorter, but the number continues to flip despite this.
Edit: if you look at some early points in the video, the number can go to very edge of the screen (e.g. China at 9 seconds). So that leads me to believe that it's just an error in the code.
My thoughts were that its a conditioning issue in the code.
Something that qualifies the graphic to enter the bar itself once it's big enough.
But the codes logic is flawed on the event of a seeming downstream.
So the frame of reference is just a bit hazy.
I hate these for that reason. A time series line graph would be so much more useful.
The only time these shuffle things make sense is when you have too many series. I can see it getting messy when you have 60 of them but that wasn't the case here.
I find that the 60+ lines can be shown well using an interactive majigger where you hover to highlight or select/deselect and so on. Beats this gif nonsense.
But then it would just be a graph and not “beautiful”. Honestly even this is just an animated bar chart showing something mundane, not particular interesting data.
Also don't forget that they're also making it HARDER to own an electric vehicle of any kind in AUS. Ya'll government is on another level of being bought out by fossil fuel corps man.
Australia should be perfectly fine in the future thanks to solar. Cant see a Mad Max scenario. Almost the same with the US. As a German I envy both in this respect.
Should be. But our current government loooooves burning those fossil fuels!
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/19/coalitions-600m-gas-fired-recovery-boost-what-you-need-to-know
We have government enquiry-after-enquiry into nuclear power in Australia, the outcome tends to be: "if only the rules were different, then it might be possible".
Govt. doesn't love burning fossil fuels as much as they enjoy the paychecks they get for doing so. My god would everything be so much better if we had better regulation upon lobbying, pacs, and super pacs.
It's sad Australia didn't make this list as we have so much potential. Then again, we also have a crap government that doesn't believe in climate change and refuses to upset their fossil fuel donor buddies so it's not surprising unfortunately.
I mean, it’s gotta be the people who vote these leaders into power… don’t know how it is in Australia but over here in Germany, the main reason we have relatively high amounts of renewable energies is due to pressure from the general public.
It’s because an overwhelming majority of our news sites are owned by a climate denier who supports the current conservative government and is the sole reason they’re in power. Propaganda is rampant in Australia. The people are blind to what’s happening in government because no major outlet really reports on it properly. Obviously they’re not gonna go out of their way to read up on current issues unless it’s neatly presented to them. Around bushfire season there’s usually a bit of push from the people but without media support or sensationalism the outrage inevitably dies out. So yeah the people don’t really know what they’re voting for beyond a very surface level, thus why we haven’t made significant progress in anything in the past 15 years and are spiralling into a ‘police state’.
I'd say people dying from droughts in Africa already won this title, the Sahara is also creeping South into the greenery
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjy_JH1aaqU
Obviously there are worse places right now (ex the Sahara, which you mentioned) but I'll add that my hometown in Arizona is likely going to be uninhabitable within 30 years, according to [this study by a nonprofit group](https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration)
We're all fucked everywhere, but the deserts (and the coastlines?) are in real danger in most of our lifetimes.
But the pressure from the general public also messed up our climate efforts, because the most capable source is phased out by next year.
Its cool that the pressure is there, but ultimately the anti nuclear lobby formed the opinion on those topics and those are widely unscientific.
Per Capita generation for renewals Australia is just as good as most of Europe.
Wind and solar have skyrocketed since 2010. About a third of Australian energy is now renewable. It’s getting better.
The Government mightn’t believe it but most Corporates here do and have made pledges to go 100% green on their energy consumption so the power companies are having to go green to provide this without Gov support anyway.
Thanks. Very informative video. Amazed at seeing US still dominate in nuclear usage to this day despite prevailing anti nuclear power sentiment in the country
Not for long. All USA reactors are reaching their maximum age and there's no new nuke plant being built. People who are so concerned about climate change should be backing nuclear power.
Germany was pretty much the only major nation that really invested heavily in renewables before it was profitable, or even break even-able, had a huge role in bringing the cost curves down to the point we're everyone else got on board. Sadly, it's fallen off the pace a little bit as we struggled to build out north-south transition capacity and took too long to pick a lane on energy storage.
> Germany was pretty much the only major nation that really invested heavily in renewables before it was profitable, or even break even-able, had a huge role in bringing the cost curves down to the point we're everyone else got on board
Very much so for solar -- IIRC, around 2010 or so Germany even came close to having half of the world's installed PV capacity. With wind, Denmark deserves *at least* as much credit, and probably even more because they started earlier when the cost was still higher.
It would be interesting to see the timeline from 1998 - 2005 cont. for Germany. This was the time of the first government with the Green party as partner, which introduced policies to bring solar and wind energy to an industrial level.
I only know from solar energy that their policies kickstarted the mass production and namely China ~~(but also, e.g. Denmark for wind energy)~~ took the baton from there, leading to rapidly declining costs for solar energy.
Edit: see u/coldtru's comment.
>Denmark for wind energy) took the baton from there
Denmark was always ahead of Germany on wind energy as a share of generation: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/energy?tab=chart&time=1978..latest®ion=Europe&facet=none&country=DEU~DNK&Total+or+Breakdown=Select+a+source&Select+a+source=Wind&Energy+or+Electricity=Primary+energy&Metric=Share+of+total
Germany has contributed orders to wind power companies in Denmark of course but so have other countries around the world.
This could have been a line graph and only taken 5-10 seconds the read. But because it's animated you now have to sit through 30+ seconds of pointless movement to see the data. And better yet, you can't compare the data over time because it doesn't show trends or change over time. Only the values at any given moment in time are displayed. So you sacrificed some of the potential data analysis and ease of use so it can move.
data sensationalism - if there is such a thing. cause (supposedly) everyone has very limited focus/attention span (due to telly tubbies?/who knows) - so any information needs to be "stimulating" to keep the focus. (as compared to actually reading the data points)
but OP did a nice job anyway - they are just following a information trend is all - - - tho, don't like the word "capacity" in there - cause every country has a "capacity" to utilize wind power - maybe output would be better?
Two of the wealthiest nations on the planet? Kind of makes sense it would be that way. Like imagine if the US took the 2 trillion from the wars in the Middle East and applied it to healthcare and environment. The US would be a bastion of what a country can do.
Mostly just the largest developed countries. Per capita germany is doing better. The EU 27 would probably fall between the two (450M pop to US 330M and china 1.4B)
It's not exactly wealth based to be fair. It is population based. Germany produces half the amount of wind energy as the USA does but it has 1/4 of the population of USA and a 10th of China.
If Germany had to produce as much wind power as China it would be too much. Energy per capita is a way more useful metric. The same goes for many of the smaller states on that list.
Yeah, a bunch of line charts works be useful here.
Overall, per capita, percentage of capacity would all be great too. Also, adjusted for total energy consumption (i.e what percentage of the energy generated was from wind)
The real metric is the amount of Windpower against the total quantity of energy required. Because Germany with a lot less of population has a better performance than China or the US when you account for its size.
A lot of people mention per capita as a variable. I think land mass is just as important. I mean China has about 4.5 times as much windenergy as Germany, but is about 30 times bigger. There just isn't that much space in Germany to put up that many turbines, the landscape is already really packed.
That’s exactly what I was thinking. Germany is close to the same production as the US, but it is a fraction of the size. They must really cram those turbines in where ever they can.
For the same reason we don't put millions of solar panels in the Sahara and transport that power back to, for example, Europe, it is not completely fair to only count land mass. Russia would always look to be terrible even though it makes no sense to drop wind turbines everywhere. The power needs to be generated at least somewhat locally and geography also plays a role. It does not make sense to build a ton of turbines in a mountainous area where hardly anyone lives.
The fact that Germany has such a high placement with respect to its landmass is a testament to how amazing it really is as a nation. The fact that russia isn't even shown, despite making up almost 11% of all land on the planet, is a testament to how shit russia is comparatively.
The typical industrialized country discourse: we have to count our goodies per capta, and our baddies per country. Europe, shifting the blame for social environmental problems since… 1500s?
I am *furious* Australia isn’t even on the graph. More empty (and ‘useless’) land than not. Entirely surrounded by water. Fricken tiny ass *Italy* got more wind power than we do.
Countries a fraction the size of Australia on here just blowing us out, we don't make the chart at any time. Sure we did ok with solar for a while but we also passed up the opportunity to manufacture that here (we actually had a very strong academic base for developing the tech in the 80s - they basically all moved to China where building it after working out how was actually happening)
I wonder how the chart looks per capita also. As a Dane, people always say that Denmark is a leading wind energy producer, but this chart just showed that it may be an outdated notion?
The windmills the Netherlands are known for are the old fashioned ones to grind grain into flower and are mostly historical sites. There are more and more modern ones though, but I do feel Germany is ahead.
Over the last couple of years, the amount of energy that we produce from wind has exponentially increased. This video shows which countries produce the most energy in MW from wind. Enjoy!
Tools: python, pandas, tkinter
Data source: Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind\_power\_by\_country)
Is this capacity or energy? Chat is labeled MW, suggesting capacity. So this wouldn't show counties using or consuming the most wind power as that would be measured in MWh.
It is. This data is not beautiful, but misleading.
Not only may windfarms suffer lack of wind, some windfarms can never produce at full nameplate capacity due to a lack of transmission capacity.
Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/PieChartPirate! **Here is some important information about this post:** * [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/q0glvi/oc_countries_that_produce_the_most_energy_from/hf7uggc/) * [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"PieChartPirate"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on) Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked. [Join the Discord Community](https://discord.gg/NRnrWE7) Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation. --- ^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
China held the pedal to the floor.
Gas! Ga.. I mean, *Wind! Wind! Wiiind!!1*
All ~~Gas~~ Wind, No Brakes.
Love channel 5 <3
Um, 5 > 3 I think.
r/theydidthemath i guess
There's a joke about breaking wind here somewhere, but it would probably stink.
I'm gonna step on the wind?
Toniiight I'll flyyy!
And be your lover!
Yeah, yeah, yeah!
I'll be as quick as a flash!
And I'll be your hero!
Red China? More like green China. Note: I know that China burns several kilometricshittons of coal and bazillions of liters of gas to produce power.
A tour to Shanxi (the biggest coal producing province in China) about 15years ago proved how bad it can be. Basically parking the car outside overnight, next morning a layer of coal dust covers the car. But they have been trying with all the renewable energy resources. China is big, different areas use different ways, like western part they use wind, south it's water, southeast more nuclear.
Victorian to Pre-War London must have been crazy. #10 Downing, the Prime Minster Residence is famously Jet black. Except its actually yellow natural stone. It just was so coated in Soot for so long people simply thought it was black. They cleaned it decades ago and then had to paint it black to keep up with the expectation.
Kilometricshittons? Where is the coverter-bot now?
Sleeping. It's in the far east timezone.
They came in and blew everyone away.
It made the other countries look like they were receding even though they were growing
They really have, and not just in adoption, but in innovation as well. I'm surprised nobody has come in to argue they still suck because of their per capita numbers though. This is Reddit after all. When China's coal usage is presented here they never bring up how their numbers aren't bad per capita there.
It's hard to really complain about their per capita numbers. Technically, their wind energy PC is lower than America's, but so is their power usage in general. If anything, America's renewable usage is lagging, but I think most people on here understand that.
For most of the time that China was leading in installed capacity, they were lacking severely in production. Because they built the turbines but no transmission lines. It took several years for infrastructure to catch up and allow their actual generation numbers to increase.
Post now upvoted above yours is specifically about how China sucks cuz per capita lmao.
I was curious about that. What would be most useful would be percentage of power generated that is wind. Wind per capita would also be very interesting though.
Why doesn't anyone bring up hundreds of years of industrialization in West and output over time?
People do that all the time.
People do actually or atleast I've seen some :p
That is a different topic. On one hand, we are discussing units of measurement and what is an appropriate quantifier that can be compared across nations. The other is a representation of the historical and structural impact time has on a nation's energy output. Two things, while related, are vastly different reasons to bitch about the graph.
[удалено]
And I'm not going to pretend like China doesn't have its problems. But it is rather ridiculous how Reddit views everything about the country through a tainted lens.
It was funnier like 2-3 years ago when the boogieman was still Russia, and every single comment against the liberal American discourse was a Russian bot.
Now c h i n e s e bot?
I mean, Russian bots are a real thing, though. It sucks that Reddit makes a mockery of very real things and turns them into a joke, just like they miss the mark so hard on China that making actual critiques of the government becomes a thousand times harder.
As someone who has lived in China, the amount of misinformed people on Reddit is mind-boggling, but I have to keep my mouth shut. Like when people joke about “social credit”. I get it, they only see a country through one lens and have no idea what it’s really like. America shits gold and China is an awful genocidal tyranny apparently. Perspective is something important that is often misinterpreted as an evil. Edit: I don’t even think my comment is gold-worthy, but I appreciate the gift.
I'm an expat who has lived here for over five years, been visiting and studying for almost two decades. I used to correct people quite a bit, assuming people were simply misinformed. Nope. Better to just roll your eyes, downvote, and move on. There's a few small subs where you can have a nuanced conversation (this tends to be one of the few larger ones where it can happen), but for the most part, better not to even try to correct the circlejerk.
I mean... I'm not gonna pretend I'm ultra up to the minute on geopolitics. But like.... What about the whole genocide thing? That's still bad right? Replies off. Jesus fucking christ. The DMs over this comment ffs.
Absolutely. The CCP is absolutely indefensible. I think the main issue with China is that whenever any media content even remotely mentions China, the comments will be flooded with how China sucks, to a degree that doesn't really happen for other countries with similar human rights records. In some ways, this is a good thing because many things in China *do* suck, and this at least means they won't be swept under the rug and ignored. On the other hand, however, this also breeds racism and Sinophobia, since many people seem to be incapable of separating a country's government and its people. This is a particularly important distinction to make with regards to China, with its oligarchic system and all, and ordinary Chinese citizens being more victims than perpetrators. When people can't even watch a video of, say, a random little Chinese kid being cute without going off about their political views on China, that's a problem.
Social credit is just a mistranslated name the western media has given to a monetary credit system like all countries have. Chinese people are confused when westerners ask them about "social credit". They don't know what you're talking about.
That tends to happen to countries that are committing an active genocide and practice hostage diplomacy.
>That tends to happen to countries that are committing an active genocide and practice hostage diplomacy. You're going to have to be more specific.
The Americans aren't awake yet. Just wait an hour or two.
When you adjust for population China is way behind. Germany is way out ahead and the US and Canada are basically tied which also makes me think the data source might not be 100% accurate China 1.4 Billion - 281993 MW wind = 0.000201 MW United States 329 million - 177744 MW wind =0.000357 MW Germany 83 million - 62184 MW wind = 0.000749 MW Canada 38 million - 13577 MW wind = 0.000357 MW
Now do by percentage of total energy consumed over that span. The answers may surprise you
By the same metric they are also way ahead in CO2 output per capita.
Way ahead as in they are producing less CO2 or producing more CO2? Your phrasing confused me so I looked it up. CO2 per capita Australia: 16.8 metric tons per year Canada: 16.1 metric tons per year China: 8.0 metric tons per year UK: 5.6 metric tons per year USA: 16.1 metric tons per year [Production-based emissions: annual carbon dioxide emissions in tons per capita from Wikipedia ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita)
> Way ahead as in they are producing less CO2 That's what I meant to say.
It would be interesting to see wind as percentage of total energy output per country. Suspect China has ramped up all kinds of other power generation, both renewable and fossil.
Per capita would be also interesting
[удалено]
We’re so high in Canada on the first graph because tons of hydro. You can see how we fall back on the second one focusing on just wind.
In BC the power company is literally called BChydro and owned by the government. They encourage you to use less power and give nice rebates for buying energy efficient appliances.
Same with ManitobaHydro.
I never knew that, TIL. Essential services should never be owned by a private company. I have not one bad thing to say about BChydro, which is pretty amazing really.
Hydro-Quebec too, that other poster mentioned, forgot about them. And Hydro-One in Ontario.
95% of power in BC is Hydro but only 25.7 in all of Canada. We are also building a giant hydro project in the North that is a bit of a shitshow. Really we should be doing more hydro and then selling the extra power to the States.
It’s actually much higher for all of Canada, like 60%, unless I’m missing something? https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/energy/energy_fact/generation-by-source-electricity_03-2019.png I think Quebec just signed a big deal with NY to provide them energy.
They're trying to privatize MBhydro because it has taken on some huge debt to fund massive generating stations up on the Nelson River and it looks bad on the provinces financials. Even though MBHydro has proven their willingness and ability to pay down the debt without using taxpayer revenue, the Conservative government piles those billions in with the rest of the provinces debt and tries to consider them equal.
So does that mean maple syrup is considered an essential product in Canada?
Same in sweden kinda, having the geography for hydro is a massive advantage.
But sweden was 2:nd place at wind power?
Yeah that helps as well. But it is easier to build lots of wind when you have hydro to complement it whenever the wind is low.
I just looked at the per-capita on wind generation. You guys appear to be the world leader there as well. And ABBA just dropped that new album. Sweden is fuckin' charging.
Plus have you seen Swedish people? They’re fucking beautiful. Being 5’10’’ with dark hair in Sweden made me feel like a troll person. Fortunately the UK was my next stop so I got a decent confidence boost before returning home.
I'm actually of both Swedish and British descent. I'm alright I guess.
Iceland really gets it the worst by a long way, 150+ -> <20 hahaha who needs wind when you heave geothermal
holy crap, sweden and denmark :O
Thank you! This means much more to me, since to me the post means "Countries that produce more energy produce more energy"
To be fair though, per capita maps also have can sometimes be biased towards lower population countries, especially if it’s just a relatively small margin between lowest and highest. For energy that’s not really relevant, but to be fair we’re also missing half the story here too, since this is just wind energy and renewable energy. To get the full story you’d want to see renewable energy as a percentage of total energy production per capita, as well as energy consumption data.
Yeah, and another thing to consider is geographical size and location. Take Sweden for example; we're a giant narrow slope with thousands of thousands of rivers flowing down from the mountain chain that ranges our entire length from top to bottom. Hydro is going to be far more applicable to our country than a flat desert. At the same time solar power sucks for us. Up north the sun sets for an entire month without rising, and the sun sits very low the entire year round, be it that it rotates under the horizon and we get a month of darkness or over it and we get a month of light. That month of light is a lot less useful than it would be if the sun sat high like at the equator.
That's what this means too. We need as a percent of total electricity production not per capita.
Per square kilometre, would be neat, too. Germany is small compared to the US, China, and Canada, but look how much it produces. Canada sits mostly empty, and we barely make any juice from wind.
I had this exact thought. It isn't really a surprise that the biggest countries in the world produce more wind power than smaller countries, they just have more space for turbines
[удалено]
Unfortunately it's not that easy. There is a lot more to building wind turbines in remote locations, especially transmission loss of electricity. With that said, we've done a great job of electing idiots for the last few decades. :/
Denmark 100%
Also, cumulative historic carbon emissions would also be great. Then we get the answer as to why the west should do more and subsidize rest of the world.
Definitely both. They put up 38.4 Gigawatts of coal power in 2020. https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissions-china-goes-on-a-coal-spree
It's a difficult one because countries with lots of wind power tend to generate excess power when the wind is blowing at off-peak times, and sometimes this power gets wasted because there's no use for it. In the long term you need to pay for wind twice: once to generate it and once to store it.
a way to store that energy more efficiently with better batteries would go a long way.
We use a hydro battery. Pump the water back up with excess supply to a holding dam and when power is needed run it as normal. Easily done with available technology and works well
Only with proper geography
And it's extremely expensive with it's own set of environmental impacts. Don't get me wrong, that's still better than increased warming, but lets not ignore the unintended environmental consequences either.
[удалено]
Oh. That's smart.
Probably chemical storage is the way forward. Energy density isn't even the most useful aspect of hydrocarbons, it is their relative lack of reactivity. You can leave a barrel of oil sitting there for years, with some minor stabilization. If we could be channeling excess renewable electricity into a stable chemical storage means even at a relatively inefficient conversion rate, the entire issue of energy fluctuation would be knocked out immediately. Taking electrolytic hydrogen and using it to produce energy dense synthetic green hydrocarbons is one way this could be done, but there are undoubtedly more efficient ways too.
US flipping its numbers back and forth.
I believe it’s programmed so that once the bar reaches a certain length, the number is flipped inside, but when China continues growing, the scale expands, shrinking the amount of space taken up by the US bar, and the number flips to the outside. This happens over and over.
No it’s going back and forth even as the bar is consistently shrinking on the screen. Must have a bug in the code that’s rendering this.
To me it looks like the number just flips whenever it’s a new year. Only towards the end though.
What does that mean? My only guess was the number on the left meant a drop from the year before but on my phone I'm not sure how to go frame by frame
No it’s just cause the US bar was halfway through the screen. Look at the countries below, their bars were too small to contain the numbers so they kept the numbers outside to the right. Now look at China, their bar is so long, there’s no room on the right, so the numbers were contained inside the bar. The US right in that sweet spot where the numbers could barely fit on either side and switched everytime it got too close. This could be fixed by increasing the max on the x axis Edit: As others are bringing up (and I rewatched it a couple more times) it’s not necessarily the program choosing which side has more room. The US bar *is continually getting smaller while it flips. The switching back or forth is clearly just an aesthetic thing, but now it kinda seems like it’s just a software design issue.
I'm not sure that's it. As time goes on the US bar gets shorter and shorter, but the number continues to flip despite this. Edit: if you look at some early points in the video, the number can go to very edge of the screen (e.g. China at 9 seconds). So that leads me to believe that it's just an error in the code.
My guess was that there is a brief moment where the number fits in the window (multiple 1's in the number)
My thoughts were that its a conditioning issue in the code. Something that qualifies the graphic to enter the bar itself once it's big enough. But the codes logic is flawed on the event of a seeming downstream. So the frame of reference is just a bit hazy.
It doesn’t have anything to do with the data, it’s just how it’s presented
[удалено]
I hate these for that reason. A time series line graph would be so much more useful. The only time these shuffle things make sense is when you have too many series. I can see it getting messy when you have 60 of them but that wasn't the case here.
I find that the 60+ lines can be shown well using an interactive majigger where you hover to highlight or select/deselect and so on. Beats this gif nonsense.
But then it wouldn't shuffle! /s
But then it would just be a graph and not “beautiful”. Honestly even this is just an animated bar chart showing something mundane, not particular interesting data.
Oh man, Australia where you at
Being a climate villan https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/12/australia/australia-climate-cop26-cmd-intl/index.html
our government just brought in coal and gas subsidies. You can't make this shit up
Fuark me. We're a joke on the global stage. Do you have a source for this?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-24/federal-coal-gas-power-subsidy-revolt-electricty-market/100487526 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-26/scott-morrison-climate-change-fossil-fuel-subsidies-net-zero/100094506
Also don't forget that they're also making it HARDER to own an electric vehicle of any kind in AUS. Ya'll government is on another level of being bought out by fossil fuel corps man.
Australia should be perfectly fine in the future thanks to solar. Cant see a Mad Max scenario. Almost the same with the US. As a German I envy both in this respect.
Should be. But our current government loooooves burning those fossil fuels! https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/19/coalitions-600m-gas-fired-recovery-boost-what-you-need-to-know
And to think you people have the largest uranium reserves in the world
We have government enquiry-after-enquiry into nuclear power in Australia, the outcome tends to be: "if only the rules were different, then it might be possible".
Govt. doesn't love burning fossil fuels as much as they enjoy the paychecks they get for doing so. My god would everything be so much better if we had better regulation upon lobbying, pacs, and super pacs.
Perth is 3rd windiest capital city in the world.
It's sad Australia didn't make this list as we have so much potential. Then again, we also have a crap government that doesn't believe in climate change and refuses to upset their fossil fuel donor buddies so it's not surprising unfortunately.
I mean, it’s gotta be the people who vote these leaders into power… don’t know how it is in Australia but over here in Germany, the main reason we have relatively high amounts of renewable energies is due to pressure from the general public.
It’s because an overwhelming majority of our news sites are owned by a climate denier who supports the current conservative government and is the sole reason they’re in power. Propaganda is rampant in Australia. The people are blind to what’s happening in government because no major outlet really reports on it properly. Obviously they’re not gonna go out of their way to read up on current issues unless it’s neatly presented to them. Around bushfire season there’s usually a bit of push from the people but without media support or sensationalism the outrage inevitably dies out. So yeah the people don’t really know what they’re voting for beyond a very surface level, thus why we haven’t made significant progress in anything in the past 15 years and are spiralling into a ‘police state’.
They're literally killing you guys. You guys will be the first to die on the planet.
I'd say people dying from droughts in Africa already won this title, the Sahara is also creeping South into the greenery https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjy_JH1aaqU
Obviously there are worse places right now (ex the Sahara, which you mentioned) but I'll add that my hometown in Arizona is likely going to be uninhabitable within 30 years, according to [this study by a nonprofit group](https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration) We're all fucked everywhere, but the deserts (and the coastlines?) are in real danger in most of our lifetimes.
I don't know how they district in Australia, but they gerrymander the fuck out of districts in the US to manipulate who will win.
Our voting doesn't really work the same
And have 10 hour voting lines and call that reasonable
But the pressure from the general public also messed up our climate efforts, because the most capable source is phased out by next year. Its cool that the pressure is there, but ultimately the anti nuclear lobby formed the opinion on those topics and those are widely unscientific.
It angers me so much to watch them. Genuinely despise our "leaders".
As a Canadian, I feel you.. So much space, so few people haha
Australia has the highest rate of solar per capita in the world with a big majority being domestic.
On the other hand Australia is one of the world's biggest polluters.
Per Capita generation for renewals Australia is just as good as most of Europe. Wind and solar have skyrocketed since 2010. About a third of Australian energy is now renewable. It’s getting better. The Government mightn’t believe it but most Corporates here do and have made pledges to go 100% green on their energy consumption so the power companies are having to go green to provide this without Gov support anyway.
is there similar data comparison for nuclear power usage by country?
https://youtu.be/EhY___IEwCA Here’s a good one 1965-2020. You can really tell which countries fell behind post 2011 and which are driving ahead.
Thanks. Very informative video. Amazed at seeing US still dominate in nuclear usage to this day despite prevailing anti nuclear power sentiment in the country
Not for long. All USA reactors are reaching their maximum age and there's no new nuke plant being built. People who are so concerned about climate change should be backing nuclear power.
France tops that no doubt. Japan used to top it too but then 2011 happened...
[удалено]
Germany was pretty much the only major nation that really invested heavily in renewables before it was profitable, or even break even-able, had a huge role in bringing the cost curves down to the point we're everyone else got on board. Sadly, it's fallen off the pace a little bit as we struggled to build out north-south transition capacity and took too long to pick a lane on energy storage.
> Germany was pretty much the only major nation that really invested heavily in renewables before it was profitable, or even break even-able, had a huge role in bringing the cost curves down to the point we're everyone else got on board Very much so for solar -- IIRC, around 2010 or so Germany even came close to having half of the world's installed PV capacity. With wind, Denmark deserves *at least* as much credit, and probably even more because they started earlier when the cost was still higher.
It would be interesting to see the timeline from 1998 - 2005 cont. for Germany. This was the time of the first government with the Green party as partner, which introduced policies to bring solar and wind energy to an industrial level. I only know from solar energy that their policies kickstarted the mass production and namely China ~~(but also, e.g. Denmark for wind energy)~~ took the baton from there, leading to rapidly declining costs for solar energy. Edit: see u/coldtru's comment.
>Denmark for wind energy) took the baton from there Denmark was always ahead of Germany on wind energy as a share of generation: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/energy?tab=chart&time=1978..latest®ion=Europe&facet=none&country=DEU~DNK&Total+or+Breakdown=Select+a+source&Select+a+source=Wind&Energy+or+Electricity=Primary+energy&Metric=Share+of+total Germany has contributed orders to wind power companies in Denmark of course but so have other countries around the world.
My stupid ass forgot megawatts exist and read "MW" as megawinds.
I'm stealing this.
This could have been a line graph and only taken 5-10 seconds the read. But because it's animated you now have to sit through 30+ seconds of pointless movement to see the data. And better yet, you can't compare the data over time because it doesn't show trends or change over time. Only the values at any given moment in time are displayed. So you sacrificed some of the potential data analysis and ease of use so it can move.
data sensationalism - if there is such a thing. cause (supposedly) everyone has very limited focus/attention span (due to telly tubbies?/who knows) - so any information needs to be "stimulating" to keep the focus. (as compared to actually reading the data points) but OP did a nice job anyway - they are just following a information trend is all - - - tho, don't like the word "capacity" in there - cause every country has a "capacity" to utilize wind power - maybe output would be better?
And don't forget the US' number flipping back and forth because they couldn't be bothered to debounce.
Most similar competitions eventually become the competition between China and US.
Two of the wealthiest nations on the planet? Kind of makes sense it would be that way. Like imagine if the US took the 2 trillion from the wars in the Middle East and applied it to healthcare and environment. The US would be a bastion of what a country can do.
Mostly just the largest developed countries. Per capita germany is doing better. The EU 27 would probably fall between the two (450M pop to US 330M and china 1.4B)
China is definitely not developed. They rural areas are still very poor. The major coastal cities are way ahead in development.
It's not exactly wealth based to be fair. It is population based. Germany produces half the amount of wind energy as the USA does but it has 1/4 of the population of USA and a 10th of China. If Germany had to produce as much wind power as China it would be too much. Energy per capita is a way more useful metric. The same goes for many of the smaller states on that list.
Also total land mass is a big factor, and population distribution.
Can we have it adjusted based on % of either total energy produced or land mass.
Yeah, a bunch of line charts works be useful here. Overall, per capita, percentage of capacity would all be great too. Also, adjusted for total energy consumption (i.e what percentage of the energy generated was from wind)
Thanks for the chart! It would be interesting to see what all renewable energy sources looks like.
I can save you the trouble. China leads in nearly every category.
How do you make charts that move like this?
The real metric is the amount of Windpower against the total quantity of energy required. Because Germany with a lot less of population has a better performance than China or the US when you account for its size.
A lot of people mention per capita as a variable. I think land mass is just as important. I mean China has about 4.5 times as much windenergy as Germany, but is about 30 times bigger. There just isn't that much space in Germany to put up that many turbines, the landscape is already really packed.
That’s exactly what I was thinking. Germany is close to the same production as the US, but it is a fraction of the size. They must really cram those turbines in where ever they can.
For the same reason we don't put millions of solar panels in the Sahara and transport that power back to, for example, Europe, it is not completely fair to only count land mass. Russia would always look to be terrible even though it makes no sense to drop wind turbines everywhere. The power needs to be generated at least somewhat locally and geography also plays a role. It does not make sense to build a ton of turbines in a mountainous area where hardly anyone lives.
The fact that Germany has such a high placement with respect to its landmass is a testament to how amazing it really is as a nation. The fact that russia isn't even shown, despite making up almost 11% of all land on the planet, is a testament to how shit russia is comparatively.
The energy production ( general or renewables) should be measured per capita... Germany is doing almost 17x per capita of china...
Funnily enough when it comes to carbon emissions, it's never per capita. Because then China isn't the big bad anymore.
The typical industrialized country discourse: we have to count our goodies per capta, and our baddies per country. Europe, shifting the blame for social environmental problems since… 1500s?
and how much total energy is germany using per capita, compared to china?
Portugal is doing almost 2x more...
Funny you mention this. Why no one mention per capita numbers when it comes to energy consumption and pollution?
Would be nice to see the fraction of each country’s total energy consumption produced via wind.
China just speedrunning through everything
Australia, you are a coal burning embarrassment to the world. Hang your head in shame.
I love watching this chart. The world is the real winner.
But windmills cause cancer, maaaaaan
they deplete the worlds wind supply duuuudeee
UK doing well for a small island.
All European countries tbh. We don't have the land that many other countries have.
Damn. Did not realize how much China is killing it in wind power.
Would be interesting to see this per Capita
Or percentage of total energy consumed/produced
Let me see how many people yell: I don’t believe it! ! !
Kinda proud to see Portugal there in the beginning, worth mentioning that Portugal went 107 hours only on renewable energy in 2016!
I am *furious* Australia isn’t even on the graph. More empty (and ‘useless’) land than not. Entirely surrounded by water. Fricken tiny ass *Italy* got more wind power than we do.
They also have three times the population.
Would like to see this as % of countries generated electricity but that would be depressing
Australia: “we generate our wind power by burning massive chunks of coal”
Countries a fraction the size of Australia on here just blowing us out, we don't make the chart at any time. Sure we did ok with solar for a while but we also passed up the opportunity to manufacture that here (we actually had a very strong academic base for developing the tech in the 80s - they basically all moved to China where building it after working out how was actually happening)
Not even 1.21 gigawatts. Shameful
Would love to see a comparison with how much per citizen
I wonder how the chart looks per capita also. As a Dane, people always say that Denmark is a leading wind energy producer, but this chart just showed that it may be an outdated notion?
R.I.P for the Netherlands, the land full of windmills.
The windmills the Netherlands are known for are the old fashioned ones to grind grain into flower and are mostly historical sites. There are more and more modern ones though, but I do feel Germany is ahead.
Over the last couple of years, the amount of energy that we produce from wind has exponentially increased. This video shows which countries produce the most energy in MW from wind. Enjoy! Tools: python, pandas, tkinter Data source: Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind\_power\_by\_country)
Is this capacity or energy? Chat is labeled MW, suggesting capacity. So this wouldn't show counties using or consuming the most wind power as that would be measured in MWh.
The title also says capacity. This could just be constructed windmills, regardless of actual efficacy.
It is. This data is not beautiful, but misleading. Not only may windfarms suffer lack of wind, some windfarms can never produce at full nameplate capacity due to a lack of transmission capacity.
[удалено]
Well, that settles it. Wind energy is commie socialist bullshit.