6 ms·

Photovoltaic growth: reality versus projections of the IEA

142 points by ericdanielski 9y ago

mtgx 9y ago
IEA's EV growth projections are just as bad. I believe a couple of years ago they predicted something like 3% of the car market will be EVs - in 2040.
- TaylorAlexander 9y ago
  Reminds me of the old IBM quote about the market for computers. It just sounds like a combination of old and entrenched thinking. For the longest time nothing could shake fossil fuels and anyone who believed otherwise was proven wrong. People in the fossil fuel community could succeed while dismissing renewables. But the facts no longer support those old positions, and entrenched organizations will be slow to pick up on it. I’ve never heard of this organization but I hope they’re not driving policy changes anywhere, though they sound like the kind of org that would...
  - BLKNSLVR 9y ago
    It just sounds like a combination of old and entrenched thinking. My experience of economics modelling (admittedly very limited) is that it can't help but be skewed towards the status quo. The only solid figures they can use are historical, which will only act as an anchor to the predictions of the potential future. Additionally, economic modelling is often used as a risk analysis tool, and 'knowns' (with solid historical numbers and patterns) are always less risky than 'unknowns' with limited information. 'New' always faces an uphill battle on many fronts.
    - addicted 9y ago
      Are there models which factor in an analysis of their past successes/failures and adjust for them?
static_noise 9y ago
I haven't seen many market studies but those that I saw were... not very predictive beyond rolling dice and generic drawing exponential curves. I think we might have reached the point where push comes to shove and solar is making its breaktrough. You can't really predict when that will happen. The best we can do is "when problem X is solved" or "price point Y is reached" then it will go off and "once it does it will reach XX% market share in a short time." Afterwards it is easy to pinpoint the exact time where it went off. But beforehand. Hard. Probably impossible. Many technologies die without gaining wide adoption. The question I'm asking is not how fast solar will reach some percentage but where will it level off? 20%, 50%, 80% of total electricity generation? Will it replace fossil fuel or will it add to that? The total primary energy market is huge compared to just electricity. Will solar replace much of the primary energy consumption, too?
- agumonkey 9y ago
  maybe it will depend on different PV materials too. I read perovskite are the new hotness
  - static_noise 9y ago
    There is always the new hotness. The researchers and research money needs to go somewhere. Until it reaches silicon levels of efficiency and durability it won't become a serious contender. Silicon has reached the point where it is 'good enough' to go further and further. Usually 'good enough' wins versus 'perfect but not quite ready'. We may see with great interest where the perovskites start to level out in efficiency. If they really come close to silicon and stability is solved the market might shift very quickly. Keep a close eye to the NREL chart. EDIT: 22.7% for Perovskits vs. 26.6% for Silicon. It's getting hotter as CIGS and CdTe are beaten: https://www.nrel.gov/pv/assets/images/efficiency-chart.png https://www.nrel.gov/pv/assets/images/efficiency-chart.png
    - igravious 9y ago
      That has to be the most detailed (yet still legible) and informative graph I have seen in a very long time. Thanks. I had never heard of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory https://www.nrel.gov/ https://www.nrel.gov/ before. This is the EU effort: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/renewable-energy https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/renewable-energy Not sure how comparable it is to the US effort. Presumably other areas of the world have their own centres of research.
michaelbuckbee 9y ago
I'm not familiar enough with the machinations of these groups, but could this be explained by loss aversion? Like I've always heard that meteorologists predict rain more often than their models would actually imply -> because people get mad if they make plans and they get rained out. Is anyone "mad" if PV beats estimates or conversely is someone at the IEA going to lose their job if they say: "this is the year that solar is blowing up" and someone invests and it's finally the year it takes a break?
- rcMgD2BwE72F 9y ago
  > "this is the year that solar is blowing up" and someone invests and it's finally the year it takes a break? Do you think analysts take more risk hyping solar (b/c investors in renewable energy could lose some $ if solar stalls) or by playing down solar (b/c investors in fossil fuels could lose $$$ if solar keeps growing)? I guess fear originates from the side where most capital is at risk. Hint: not solar.
modeless 9y ago
Are the IEA's terrible predictions used when modeling future CO2 emissions for climate studies? Will the growth of solar put a dent in all those really pessimistic climate models out there?
- danielharan 9y ago
  I don't think theirs specifically, but that type of problem is core to all these models. David Roberts has been complaining about this: https://www.vox.com/2015/10/23/9604120/climate-models-uncertainty https://www.vox.com/2015/10/23/9604120/climate-models-uncert...
ggm 9y ago
I think the quality which needs reflecting on is not that in any given year they're always wrong, but that for all years they have been specifically wrong on the lowside. This can't be an averaging error where they refactor the model from past experience alone because it would either be asymptomatic or variant about the true rate. (I.e. both higher and lower, not just always lower. For the variance to always be lower it's either got to approach the value and so reflect feedback into the model, or its just.. wrong) Unless they're getting less wrong each year, this is basically doubling down on a faulty methodology. No other discipline would accept this multi year, would they?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- sharemywin 9y ago
  They're using linear extrapolation. and it's clearly an exponential curve after the fact. the problem is when does it hit saturation and flatten out like an s curve.
  - ggm 9y ago
    It's not like we've never seen a logistic supply issue before. If they just said linear as a lowside and did a high side based on saturation at some chosen level we'd have a bracketing. But instead they tick a pessimal box, and then pundits use it and planners use it as gospel for setting finance and risk rates. It's insane planning..
danmaz74 9y ago
In other news, predicting the future of technology is incredibly difficult.
- sddfd 9y ago
  It is. But I think humans are generally incapable of comprehending exponential growth.
  - svantana 9y ago
    ...which makes sense because true exponentials cannot exist in physical reality; what looks exponential is the beginning of a sigmoid or bell curve. So the question becomes what the limiting factors are and when they will kick in, thus ending the exponential growth.
    - danmaz74 9y ago
      Right. With the problem that it's usually impossible to know when those factors will kick in.
b0rsuk 9y ago
If it wasn't for pollution, it would be an exciting time to live in. Expect a new influx of Science Fiction books. The genre was born in XIX, the age of crazy progress. I think our time is a similar breakthrough, thanks to personal computers and the Internet.
- zaarn 9y ago
  Science Fiction is older than the 1900s. Just check on Jules Verne. The name "science fiction" is from the 1850's, arguably before "XIX". First almost SF books appeared in 1810 (Julius von Voß)
  - extra88 9y ago
    They didn't say science fiction is form the 1900s aka, the twentieth century. "XIX" is "19" in roman numerals, as in, nineteenth century. 1800-1899 was the nineteenth century.
  - b0rsuk 9y ago
    I'm going through a 4-book science fiction anthology which starts with Gilgamesh, Utopia, City of the Sun and so on. You really don't need to tell me that. My point was that SF surges in times when science achieves major wins. One surge was in XIX, another in 50's because of first men in space and on the Moon, as well as nuclear holocaust scare.

142 points by ericdanielski 9y ago

mtgx 9y ago

IEA's EV growth projections are just as bad. I believe a couple of years ago they predicted something like 3% of the car market will be EVs - in 2040.

TaylorAlexander 9y ago
Reminds me of the old IBM quote about the market for computers. It just sounds like a combination of old and entrenched thinking. For the longest time nothing could shake fossil fuels and anyone who believed otherwise was proven wrong. People in the fossil fuel community could succeed while dismissing renewables. But the facts no longer support those old positions, and entrenched organizations will be slow to pick up on it. I’ve never heard of this organization but I hope they’re not driving policy changes anywhere, though they sound like the kind of org that would...
- BLKNSLVR 9y ago
  It just sounds like a combination of old and entrenched thinking. My experience of economics modelling (admittedly very limited) is that it can't help but be skewed towards the status quo. The only solid figures they can use are historical, which will only act as an anchor to the predictions of the potential future. Additionally, economic modelling is often used as a risk analysis tool, and 'knowns' (with solid historical numbers and patterns) are always less risky than 'unknowns' with limited information. 'New' always faces an uphill battle on many fronts.
  - addicted 9y ago
    Are there models which factor in an analysis of their past successes/failures and adjust for them?

static_noise 9y ago

I haven't seen many market studies but those that I saw were... not very predictive beyond rolling dice and generic drawing exponential curves. I think we might have reached the point where push comes to shove and solar is making its breaktrough. You can't really predict when that will happen. The best we can do is "when problem X is solved" or "price point Y is reached" then it will go off and "once it does it will reach XX% market share in a short time." Afterwards it is easy to pinpoint the exact time where it went off. But beforehand. Hard. Probably impossible. Many technologies die without gaining wide adoption. The question I'm asking is not how fast solar will reach some percentage but where will it level off? 20%, 50%, 80% of total electricity generation? Will it replace fossil fuel or will it add to that? The total primary energy market is huge compared to just electricity. Will solar replace much of the primary energy consumption, too?

agumonkey 9y ago
maybe it will depend on different PV materials too. I read perovskite are the new hotness
- static_noise 9y ago
  There is always the new hotness. The researchers and research money needs to go somewhere. Until it reaches silicon levels of efficiency and durability it won't become a serious contender. Silicon has reached the point where it is 'good enough' to go further and further. Usually 'good enough' wins versus 'perfect but not quite ready'. We may see with great interest where the perovskites start to level out in efficiency. If they really come close to silicon and stability is solved the market might shift very quickly. Keep a close eye to the NREL chart. EDIT: 22.7% for Perovskits vs. 26.6% for Silicon. It's getting hotter as CIGS and CdTe are beaten: https://www.nrel.gov/pv/assets/images/efficiency-chart.png https://www.nrel.gov/pv/assets/images/efficiency-chart.png
  - igravious 9y ago
    That has to be the most detailed (yet still legible) and informative graph I have seen in a very long time. Thanks. I had never heard of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory https://www.nrel.gov/ https://www.nrel.gov/ before. This is the EU effort: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/renewable-energy https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/renewable-energy Not sure how comparable it is to the US effort. Presumably other areas of the world have their own centres of research.

michaelbuckbee 9y ago

I'm not familiar enough with the machinations of these groups, but could this be explained by loss aversion? Like I've always heard that meteorologists predict rain more often than their models would actually imply -> because people get mad if they make plans and they get rained out. Is anyone "mad" if PV beats estimates or conversely is someone at the IEA going to lose their job if they say: "this is the year that solar is blowing up" and someone invests and it's finally the year it takes a break?

rcMgD2BwE72F 9y ago
> "this is the year that solar is blowing up" and someone invests and it's finally the year it takes a break? Do you think analysts take more risk hyping solar (b/c investors in renewable energy could lose some $ if solar stalls) or by playing down solar (b/c investors in fossil fuels could lose $$$ if solar keeps growing)? I guess fear originates from the side where most capital is at risk. Hint: not solar.

modeless 9y ago

Are the IEA's terrible predictions used when modeling future CO2 emissions for climate studies? Will the growth of solar put a dent in all those really pessimistic climate models out there?

danielharan 9y ago
I don't think theirs specifically, but that type of problem is core to all these models. David Roberts has been complaining about this: https://www.vox.com/2015/10/23/9604120/climate-models-uncertainty https://www.vox.com/2015/10/23/9604120/climate-models-uncert...

ggm 9y ago

I think the quality which needs reflecting on is not that in any given year they're always wrong, but that for all years they have been specifically wrong on the lowside. This can't be an averaging error where they refactor the model from past experience alone because it would either be asymptomatic or variant about the true rate. (I.e. both higher and lower, not just always lower. For the variance to always be lower it's either got to approach the value and so reflect feedback into the model, or its just.. wrong) Unless they're getting less wrong each year, this is basically doubling down on a faulty methodology. No other discipline would accept this multi year, would they?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sharemywin 9y ago
They're using linear extrapolation. and it's clearly an exponential curve after the fact. the problem is when does it hit saturation and flatten out like an s curve.
- ggm 9y ago
  It's not like we've never seen a logistic supply issue before. If they just said linear as a lowside and did a high side based on saturation at some chosen level we'd have a bracketing. But instead they tick a pessimal box, and then pundits use it and planners use it as gospel for setting finance and risk rates. It's insane planning..

danmaz74 9y ago

In other news, predicting the future of technology is incredibly difficult.

sddfd 9y ago
It is. But I think humans are generally incapable of comprehending exponential growth.
- svantana 9y ago
  ...which makes sense because true exponentials cannot exist in physical reality; what looks exponential is the beginning of a sigmoid or bell curve. So the question becomes what the limiting factors are and when they will kick in, thus ending the exponential growth.
  - danmaz74 9y ago
    Right. With the problem that it's usually impossible to know when those factors will kick in.

b0rsuk 9y ago

If it wasn't for pollution, it would be an exciting time to live in. Expect a new influx of Science Fiction books. The genre was born in XIX, the age of crazy progress. I think our time is a similar breakthrough, thanks to personal computers and the Internet.

zaarn 9y ago
Science Fiction is older than the 1900s. Just check on Jules Verne. The name "science fiction" is from the 1850's, arguably before "XIX". First almost SF books appeared in 1810 (Julius von Voß)
- extra88 9y ago
  They didn't say science fiction is form the 1900s aka, the twentieth century. "XIX" is "19" in roman numerals, as in, nineteenth century. 1800-1899 was the nineteenth century.
- b0rsuk 9y ago
  I'm going through a 4-book science fiction anthology which starts with Gilgamesh, Utopia, City of the Sun and so on. You really don't need to tell me that. My point was that SF surges in times when science achieves major wins. One surge was in XIX, another in 50's because of first men in space and on the Moon, as well as nuclear holocaust scare.