''Nuclear Power is the best alternative to Fossil Fuels''

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Provide 2006 and 2007 figures for generation with your own chart to make it more relevant to the current context at least.

I don't have 2006 and 2007 data. I said so 30 posts ago.
I have since asked you no less than five times to provide that information. If you don't have it, that's fine.
But, without it, we can't extend current trends to include 2006/2007 data.

If you want me to extrapolate known data as a means of predicting future trends, I can. Do you want me to do so?

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

I don't have 2006 and 2007 data. I said so 30 posts ago. I have since asked you no less than five times to provide that information. If you don't have it, that's fine. But, without it, we can't extend current trends to include 2006/2007 data. If you want me to extrapolate known data as a means of predicting future trends, I can. Do you want me to do so?

At this stage, I can only re-iterate my key points.

- Visually the scales on the chart for fossils and renewables appear too disparate, to be able to form a reasonable opinion about rates of change of past data let alone future projections. I concur that the renewables ( excluding hydro ) scale is comparatively miniscule to that of fossils, hydro and nuclear. This means that even significant changes in growth for "The Rest" or any of its sub elements like wind and solar etc, barely rates a movement on the charts overwhelmingly larger scale.

- Also as mentioned, the chart displays absolute quantities and not rates of change and when that's combined with the hugely disparate scales, the higher rates of change for "The Rest" and the sub elements like wind and solar, are near impossible to visually observe from the trend line for these other renewables. The visual granularity is just not there to be able to observe growth rates on the lower scale of "The Rest" and extrapolate projections.

- With the chart not reflecting more recent data, particularly in light of recent high growth rates for solar and wind, it further lessens our ability to draw meaningful conclusions from it.

When all these elements are combined and reflected through the chart, there it not much one can really say with great confidence, in terms of what might lay ahead in terms of emerging trends. Nonetheless, it's an interesting concept to explore.

re; [quote=Besoeker;255556]

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

At this stage, I can only re-iterate my key points.

- Visually the scales on the chart for fossils and renewables appear too disparate, to be able to form a reasonable opinion about rates of change of past data let alone future projections.

The reason that they appear disparate is because they ARE disparate.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

- With the chart not reflecting more recent data,

Quite. So provide some more recent data on actual output from renewables.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

The reason that they appear disparate is because they ARE disparate.

Exactly the scales are disparate and the scale of "The Rest" is blown away by the larger energy base scales of fossils, nuclear and hydro and thus any high growth movement within sub elements of "The Rest", like wind and solar, is not visually identifiable on such large chart scales, even though the growth rates for wind and solar might be very high. They are masked by the huge conventional energy base scales and thus their growth trajectories are not easily observed on that chart, even though such trajectories are very steep and trending upward. The true direction of growth for wind and solar in particular is masked by their comparatively smaller scales among the other reasons I have already outlined. Growth trends will ultimately provide indication the longer term paths of emerging energy markets and energy mixes.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Quite. So provide some more recent data on actual output from renewables.

Your chart, so you are welcome to update if you wish, however I'm merely commenting on it as it stands. Even though if updated, again the chart falls down for the reasons explained in prior posts, if one is to derive useful meaning from it, in terms of future energy growth projections. The chart does not seem to embody sufficient objectivity, for any firm conclusion to be obtained about where things are heading in regard to future energy growth trends. Perhaps it's not meant to ? Interesting to ponder over though. When one sees a timeline chart with curved lines heading in a certain direction, one can't help but wonder if that is meant to suggestively emphasise something about the future, even if only by mere absence of projection. I cant help wonder if the chart portrays a balanced picture.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Your chart, so you are welcome to update if you wish,

Yes it's mine. But it's no more than a graphical representation of figures in the public domain. If you have more current data, I'll willingly include it. I have now made that simple offer a number of times.

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Even though if updated, again the chart falls down for the reasons explained in prior posts, if one is to derive useful meaning from it, in terms of future energy growth projections.

I can add projections based on available data. I already offered to do so.

Originally Posted by LMagic007

The chart does not seem to embody sufficient objectivity,

The chart is constructed entirely from information in the public domain. It is entirely objective.

Originally Posted by LMagic007

When one sees a timeline chart with curved lines heading in a certain direction, one can't help but wonder if that is meant to suggestively emphasise something about the future, even if only by mere absence of projection. I cant help wonder if the chart portrays a balanced picture.

The chart is just data.
Nothing more.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Yes it's mine. But it's no more than a graphical representation of figures in the public domain. If you have more current data, I'll willingly include it. I have now made that simple offer a number of times.

A graphical representation that doesn't seem to offer a balanced and meaningful picture of trend, for reasons explained, though perhaps it's not meant to ? Simply adding more data to a chart that's inherently unbalanced on scale, wont alter reasonable interpretation, again due to the reasons elaborated previously in more detail.

Originally Posted by Besoeker

I can add projections based on available data. I already offered to do so.

You don't need new data, in order to add projections based on the data you have used to construct your chart. The reliability of such projections based on a visual interpretation of the chart trend lines, remains another question. I doubt adding additional data even up to today, will change the appearance of the chart much. The differences of scale between fossils and "The Rest" successfully masks growth rate trend of that groups sub elements, solar and wind. I suspect adding more data wont change that interpretation.

Originally Posted by Besoeker

The chart is constructed entirely from information in the public domain. It is entirely objective.

The data might be objective in the sense of it being real, however it's easy to misrepresent real data visually, in order to create an impression about trend, for the key reasons already explained on several occasions, mainly being scale and to a lesser extent absence of data.

Originally Posted by Besoeker

The chart is just data. Nothing more.

The chart is more than just data. The chart is a graphical representation of data that creates an impression of trend. Unfortunately that impression seems misleading and masks impression of trend for "The Rest", primarily for the reasons of disparity of scale and to a lesser extent absence of current data. Adding current data wont change the underlying problem of scale that significantly shapes the interpretation of growth trend for "The Rest" and its sub categories of solar and wind.

There is no escaping that the chart in its current format can't reasonably provide a balanced and reliable indication of what lies ahead.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

A graphical representation that doesn't seem to offer a balanced and meaningful picture of trend, for reasons explained, though perhaps it's not meant to ? Simply adding more data to a chart that's inherently unbalanced on scale, wont alter reasonable interpretation, again due to the reasons elaborated previously in more detail.

It is not unbalanced on scale. All sources are shown to the same scale. Were it not so, you would have a point.

Originally Posted by LMagic007

You don't need new data, in order to add projections based on the data you have used to construct your chart. The reliability of such projections based on a visual interpretation of the chart trend lines, remains another question.

Your assumption, but not my method. Any projection I produce is based on extension of a mathematical equation that provides a best fit to available data, the best fit being determined by least deviation. Visual inspection plays no part.

Originally Posted by LMagic007

differences of scale between fossils and "The Rest" successfully masks growth rate trend of that groups sub elements, solar and wind. I suspect adding more data wont change that interpretation.

There are NO differences in scale. Showing each or even some on a different scale would distort the differences. Is that what you want?

Originally Posted by LMagic007

The chart is more than just data. The chart is a graphical representation of data that creates an impression of trend. Unfortunately that impression seems misleading

Were you misled?

Originally Posted by LMagic007

and masks impression of trend for "The Rest", primarily for the reasons of disparity of scale

There is no disparity of scale. If one thing looks greater than another it is because it is greater.

Originally Posted by LMagic007

and to a lesser extent absence of current data.

Do you have more current data? If so, please provide it rather withholding it. If not, just say so. It would be a simple point for you to clear up rather than wasting further discussion on it.

Originally Posted by LMagic007

There is no escaping that the chart in its current format can't reasonably provide a balanced and reliable indication of what lies ahead.

OK. How would you format it?

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

It is not unbalanced on scale. All sources are shown to the same scale. Were it not so, you would have a point.

Exactly my point. The scale is unbalanced becuase it covers a very large range to cater for fossils, which then masks the smaller ranges of renewables in "The Rest" catagory and masks their true growth trends. The growth trends are clearly masked, becuase if they wern't you would see sharper up trends for the rest from the strong growth of wind and solar over the last decade.

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Your assumption, but not my method. Any projection I produce is based on extension of a mathematical equation that provides a best fit to available data, the best fit being determined by least deviation. Visual inspection plays no part.

Visual inspection plays a major part. That is what a chart is for. To View. There is no point in making a chart, if it's not meant to be inspected visually. That's silly.

Originally Posted by Besoeker

There are NO differences in scale. Showing each or even some on a different scale would distort the differences. Is that what you want?

That is part of the problem. The scale is unbalanced favouring the larger values of fossils in the way the trend lines are visually represented. The chart is clearly misleading masking the growth impact of wind and solar segments of "The Rest" over the last decade due to their smaller base values on a very large scale, yet those base values have very large growth components. This growth is not clearly visible on the chart.

Originally Posted by Besoeker

There is no disparity of scale. If one thing looks greater than another it is because it is greater.

There is a disparity of scale because the base values are significantly different between fossils and "The Rest". As mentioned, the very high growth rates of wind and solar over the last decade are not visually evident on the chart. Thus the chart does not give a clear indication of growth trend for this segment.

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Do you have more current data?

I don't have more current data and even if I did, it would not change the visual trend line representation due to the significant differences in bases between fossils and "The Rest". The true growth rate reflected by the trend line for "The Rest" strongly influenced by wind and solar, is masked on this chart. The chart shows visually absolute growth, but one cant get an idea of trend for the smaller values. Perhaps it's not meant to show trends ?