When I first explored the “US Energy Flow Super Sankey” I spent several minutes zooming in on the web version and then reviewing the overview. The diagram maps every major source, transformation, and use of energy in the U.S. economy, using the width of flows to show the magnitude of energy in quadrillions of BTUs. The diagram is very extensive, so it took a lot to see what flows where.
I found that the Sankey diagram is effective in showing the full complexity of the U.S. energy system, especially in the way the flow widths represent the magnitude of energy moving from sources through transformation processes to end-use sectors. This makes it easy to identify which parts of the system have the largest flows and where major inefficiencies occur, particularly the large portions of energy lost during conversion and transmission. However, the visualization also presents several challenges. Its level of detail makes it difficult to read without zooming in or using a large physical display, which limits accessibility for most viewers. The overlapping colors and numerous branching pathways can also make it hard to follow a single energy source through the system, especially for audiences without a technical background. Because of this, the Sankey format, while powerful, may overwhelm some users, and a simplified or interactive version might communicate the main insights more clearly.
Some alternative displays could have been a tree map to show the relative size of each energy source and how sources compare to each other at a glance or a flow chart which could have fewer branches, grouping similar flows together while maintaining the idea of flow direction without drowning the audience in tiny, detailed paths.
No comments:
Post a Comment