886
Gas imports or solar panels? (media.piefed.zip)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/climate@slrpnk.net
178 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
Gas imports or solar panels?
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 8 months ago (4 children)

In Yankee places "gas" means "gasoline" so I'd blame the infographic for saying "gas imports" instead of "natural gas imports" if it's supposed to target the country that uses the most natural gas

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago* (3 children)

    I don't blame it whatsoever for calling it "gas"; it should be clear to anyone remotely familiar enough with energy infrastructure to understand anything past "solar better", i.e. they should at least pick up on one of the following (in no particular order):

    • Gasoline and solar power would only be comparable for cars, and the comparison would be nonsense because electric cars pull from the grid, not pure solar.
    • The icon on the left is distinctly an LNG tanker. Even if you've never seen one, anyone who's seen a crude oil tanker would know it looks nothing like that.
    • The graphic explicitly says "LNG" twice.
    • Measuring gasoline in MMBtu would be deranged for this comparison; the sale price is expressed in the volume of crude oil/gasoline, so you'd just convert it straight to Watts. Even if you didn't know what a Btu is, you'd at least think "what the fuck is an MMBtu?"
    • Cars are never mentioned once.
    • One of the statistics is "Efficiency of a gas plant", which is the nail in the coffin for anyone who understands literally anything about energy.

    At some point it's incumbent on the reader to have a bare minimum understanding of how the world around them works; I learned some of this in circa sixth grade. Some of this on its own isn't common knowledge; all of this taken together should stop any reasonable reader from defaulting to "gasoline".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (2 children)

    If you're just gleaning it in a hurry, you miss the relatively fine print from "LNG" to "55%". Selecting font sizes to emphasize the most important information, and being understandable by an uninformed audience base (think social media), is absolutely fundamental to infographics.

    the comparison would be nonsense because electric cars pull from the grid, not pure solar.

    Not necessarily. Quite a lot of solar installation companies like Tesla's popular roof-like tiles push self-sufficiency for some reason. My guess is to sell batteries. Anyways, even without that, your petrol bill's still a useful visualization for how much more economic solar is

    anyone who’s seen a crude oil tanker

    MMBtu

    gas plant

    https://xkcd.com/2501/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)

    https://xkcd.com/2501/

    Buddy, I obviously agree for MMBtu, which is why I cited it among other unordered points and explicitly called out that people are liable not to know it. If you do know it, though, it immediately gives it away, which is why I included it to cover bases.

    But a crude oil tanker is a common thing plenty of people have seen, and putting "power plant" in there is straight-up a self-own: you are profoundly ignorant about energy infrastructure if you think we're taking gasoline into power plants to convert into electricity. That doesn't make someone bad or stupid; it just means they have zero standing to complain about how an energy infographic misled them by calling methane "gas". They lack the bare minimum foundation to even understand what it's trying to say.

    It should also be obvious that when I said "not pure solar", I meant "generally", because at that point the reader would need to be willfully obtuse to construe the graphic to be about electric cars. I almost hedged with "generally", but I (wrongly, naïvely) assumed it wouldn't be subjected to superfluous pedantry.

    Edit: I actually forgot another obvious point because there are just so many things that would tell reasonable people this isn't about gasoline: why would a tanker be used as an icon to represent gasoline anyway? A jerrycan, an oil barrel, or a gas pump would clearly be much better, because oil tankers don't represent the final product anyway, aren't a common icon for gasoline (if basically at all), and don't have a distinctive side profile. There are a million reasons it's not the graphic's fault if you look at it and assume it's about gasoline.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago

    Not everyone lives in oceanside windows. Out of those who have looked at one they don't necessarily know that's an oil tanker; if it's through a beach, it's too distant (and likely heatwaved) to perceive something different with the deck at first sight, and at closer ranges I used to think they were just empty cargo ships "and of course the decks are so high up because the ship is floating higher up because it's lighter". Working with content who've never been on a ship they think there's nothing beneath the deck except what makes it float.

    There's also the assumption that one wouldn't think "it's probably a different kind of oil tanker I haven't seen since it 'obviously' says gasoline". "What the fuck is an MMBtu?" Something related to gasoline, of course. Hindsight is not first sight.

    Most US people are profoundly ignorant about energy infrastructure other than coal plants exist and the US relies on fossil fuels and you put petrol in your car. Just because you remember a great education doesn't mean others remember their bad education. Ask someone outside of the energy and environmental subject what they learned in Earth Science (sorry if I got the subject name wrong) other than the different types of rocks, tectonics, and what the weather really is.

    it just means they have zero standing to complain

    An infographic's purpose is to communicate to the uninitiated, not preach to the choir. This is just a single word that artificially limits its target audience and frankly I don't see why we're arguing so pointedly about it.

    the reader would need to be willfully obtuse to construe the graphic to be about electric cars

    I didn't think it was about cars either, but I still think it's plausible enough that one in a hundred could mistake it, and that is my point.

    P.S.: Kudos for the diaeresis.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent