The pie charts compare the government investments in different energy sources and the share of the electricity generated by them in Australia in 2010.
Overall, it can be noticed that the proportion in the investments corresponds only partially to the generated outcome; there is no particular evidence to confirm that the investments are the highest, the efficiency is on top, it is more of a contrary.
For instance, the biggest chunk of the monetary resources is devoted to eolic energy, which accounts for 42% of the total. The power available from this investment, however, is just 2% of the electricity generated, which is almost as low as solar power: the allocated 8% of the resources give an output that covers 1% of the energy needs.
On the contrary, the ratio is inversed for natural resources like coal and gas. These non-renewable energy sources are by far the most performing. The 10% invested in coal and 6% in natural gases cover almost half, as much as 48%, and 27% of the total energy available to cover the needs respectively.
Nuclear power is less efficient than coal and gas but more performing than wind and sun and is additionally the most linear. Its input, measuring 21% of the monetary funds, gives an output of 22%. The percentage of 13 units invested in the energy sector does not give a concrete outcome in terms of energy generated.
The pie charts compare the
government
investments
in
different
energy
sources and the share of the electricity
generated
by them in Australia in 2010.
Overall
, it can
be noticed
that the proportion in the
investments
corresponds
only
partially
to the
generated
outcome; there is no particular evidence to confirm that the
investments
are the highest, the efficiency is on top, it is more of a contrary.
For instance
, the biggest chunk of the monetary resources
is devoted
to
eolic
energy
, which accounts for 42% of the total. The power available from this
investment
,
however
, is
just
2% of the electricity
generated
, which is almost as low as solar power: the allocated 8% of the resources give an output that covers 1% of the
energy
needs.
On the contrary
, the ratio is
inversed
for natural resources like coal and gas. These non-renewable
energy
sources are by far the most performing. The 10% invested in coal and 6% in natural gases cover almost half, as much as 48%, and 27% of the total
energy
available to cover the needs
respectively
.
Nuclear power is less efficient than coal and gas
but
more performing than wind and sun and is
additionally
the most linear. Its input, measuring 21% of the monetary funds, gives an output of 22%. The percentage of 13 units invested in the
energy
sector does not give a concrete outcome in terms of
energy
generated
.