Here's an example. Current published rates in our area:
https://i.imgur.com/CTiCLtP.png
The article quotes $0.135 average household rate for the US.
This is 100% meaningless. Even worse, I have no clue how (or why) one would take the numbers from our current rate (linked picture), calculate some kind of an average and then apply it to every calculation about power and energy. Again, meaningless and also inaccurate.
Regrettably, it seems lots of decisions are being made based on these averages of averages of averages. Things like "The average American drives miles per day", etc.
I get it. Slicing data into smaller clusters makes computation and conclusions far more complex. This is hard to communicate, particularly to a non-technical public. I guess I can look the other way when it involves certain types of content. However, something like Tesla's Master Plan ought to be required to use more nuanced and technically accurate methodology before being taken seriously.
As I have highlighted in another thread, the Master Plan says nothing whatsoever about only using solar vs. only using wind at grid scale. Yes, both require storage. However, quick analysis easily shows that there might be a serious question to ask about whether solar makes sense at all (at grid scale, it makes sense on rooftops). For example, an area equivalent to 1 Hawaii for wind power would require TWELVE Hawaii's of solar. Again, some of the analysis suffers from grabbing onto averages and universally applying them to every data point, which is wrong.