Login Sign Up
Start a new topic

Scales of axes on graphs

I know there must be good reasons for the choices of axes for the graphs, but I want to make a case for making the vertical scalings consistent.
I redrew some graphs with Matlab; coal had to be black. They have Renewables at maximum subsidy -0.07, and everything else at default. You can compare the simulator graphs with mine.

1) "Global Sources of Primary Energy" versus "Final Energy Consumption by Source".
Both are in Exajoules/year, but the vertical scales are 0 to 800 versus 0 to 500. This makes it extremely difficult to read off how much energy is lost between source and user.  I changed both scales to 0 to 600.  Now you can easily see, e.g.,
the huge drop in Renewables (which I don’t understand yet).

2) "Global Sources of Primary Energy" versus "Electric Energy Capacity including CCS" 
except I did NOT include CCS.  Also, Hydropower had to be yeallow. This is less clearcut, because on the one hand Gigawatts are the customary unit for electric power, but on the other hand 
1 Exajoule/year =  32 Gigawatts, so one could compare the electric capacity graph with the global sources graph by converting units.  Again, this gives you some information that is hidden by the orginal choice of axis.

I'm sorry, I attached the wrong figures.  The correct ones allow the comparisons I talked about. BTW, vertical scales are all Exajoules/year.


Good idea. I'll make a note to adjust the "Final Energy Consumption by Source" y-axis in a future release, so that it is easier to compare.

Login or Signup to post a comment

Didn’t find what you were looking for? Please submit a ticket to our support team.