6 ms·

> Solar deployment is now running at about $500 billion per year, which means that about 0.5% of global GDP is being spent on solar deployment. This figure is u

by V__ 3y ago

> Solar deployment is now running at about $500 billion per year, which means that about 0.5% of global GDP is being spent on solar deployment. This figure is up an improbable 43% Y/Y What a mind boggling relative and absolute increase.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
This is caused by the cost of solar declining 89% in the last decade [1]. Batteries are next [2]. Which leads us to solar and batteries powering the world [3]. Extrapolate exponential growth of generation and storage, not linear. There is >1TW of generation and hundreds of GWs of renewables and storage (respectively) in aggregate across all US grid operator queues, for example [4]. Similar story in China [5]. (obvs we have a long way to go, just need to push the pedal to the floor; enough sunlight falls on the Earth in 2 minutes to power humanity for a year [6], and space is not a concern [7] [8]) [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices [2] https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37435387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37435387 ("Solar and batteries are going to win, and our thinking needs to adjust") [4] https://www.pv-tech.org/nearly-1tw-of-renewables-in-us-interconnection-queues-as-wait-times-continue-to-grow/ https://www.pv-tech.org/nearly-1tw-of-renewables-in-us-inter... ("Nearly 1TW of renewables in US interconnection queues as wait times continue to grow) [5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/china-wind-solar-power-global-renewable-energy-leader https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/china-wind-sol... ("China is set to double its capacity and produce 1,200 gigawatts of energy through wind and solar power by 2025, reaching its 2030 goal five years ahead of time; ...as of the first quarter of the year, China’s utility-scale solar capacity has reached 228GW, more than that of the rest of the world combined.") [6] https://www.ku.ac.ae/two-minutes-of-sun-enough-to-power-a-year-s-usage-of-humanity-gulf-news https://www.ku.ac.ae/two-minutes-of-sun-enough-to-power-a-ye... [7] https://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/77565 https://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/77565 ("Land and Ocean Areas to Support a 100% Renewable Energy, Zero-Emissions, Regenerative Global Economy") [8] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37492062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37492062 ("Declining populations free up ag land for solar in densely populated countries")
- javajosh 3y ago
  Holy cow that lithium price graph is astounding! It's a log plot that looks like a linear decline in price. It's like Moore's law for lithium..
  - hamburga 3y ago
    Moore’s Law is a special case of the more general “Law of Accelerating Returns.” > In my view, it is one manifestation (among many) of the exponential growth of the evolutionary process that is technology. https://www.thekurzweillibrary.com/the-law-of-accelerating-returns https://www.thekurzweillibrary.com/the-law-of-accelerating-r...
- xnx 3y ago
  Great charts. I hope they update them for current years soon. I'm not sure if: the trend continued (because of technologic progress and the learning curve), the trend reversed (because of supply chain issues), or stayed the same because of the combined effects of those 2.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  Very informative. Note from your 4th link I wasn't previously aware what "interconnection queues" were. This is a good overview: https://emp.lbl.gov/queues https://emp.lbl.gov/queues. Importantly, though, only a small percentage of that capacity "in queue" will actually get built. From your link: > Much of this proposed capacity will ultimately not be built, however, with only 23% of projects seeking connection from 2000 to 2016 having subsequently been built based on a LBNL analysis of a subset of queues. Only ISO-NE and ERCOT exceeded 30% completion rates, with CAISO performing the worst at 13%.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Good callout wrt queue completion ratios. Unfortunately, there aren't many comparable leading indicators of future generation to rely on (maybe EIA's 860M survey? [1] [2], but it only gives you a short look into the future). Plans are plans until steel is in the ground and glass is getting racked. Open to other suggestions if it improves modeling and forecasting. Regardless, the amount of renewables and batteries coming online (at least in the US) can't be overstated [3]. [1] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860m/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860m/ [2] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/ [3] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c.png https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c...
tuatoru 3y ago
No, not mind-boggling at all. It's about a tenth of what is required to meet governments' signed-up-for targets for limiting global average temperature rise to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial. For reference about 2% of global GDP is spent on new fossil fuel mining and drilling investment, and another 2-4% on the fuels (including refining).
- somsak2 3y ago
  I would have expected the ratio of $ spent on new fossil fuels vs. new solar to be a lot higher than 4. My mind is quite boggled.
- itishappy 3y ago
  A 10x increase is about 6 years at the current growth rate. That's mind-boggling. It can also be not enough. They're not mutually exclusive.
- oezi 3y ago
  The figure I like to quote is that we need 2 to 5% of GDP spend per year to get to net zero by 2050. We already pretty much passed 1.5C anyway, right?
  - tuatoru 3y ago
    Yes. If we were spending 5% of global GDP on Solar and Wind now, there'd be a slim chance. Scaling up to that in six years, as a sibling comment claims, is way too late.
marcosdumay 3y ago
Jevon's paradox is one hell of a thing. When you suddenly make something very cheap, a lot of people suddenly start wanting a lot of it. What you are seeing is basically the consequence of solar changing from not the cheapest power source available into the cheapest power source available. Immediately, everybody that would invest into something else changed into solar.

by V__ 3y ago

toomuchtodo 3y ago

This is caused by the cost of solar declining 89% in the last decade [1]. Batteries are next [2]. Which leads us to solar and batteries powering the world [3]. Extrapolate exponential growth of generation and storage, not linear. There is >1TW of generation and hundreds of GWs of renewables and storage (respectively) in aggregate across all US grid operator queues, for example [4]. Similar story in China [5]. (obvs we have a long way to go, just need to push the pedal to the floor; enough sunlight falls on the Earth in 2 minutes to power humanity for a year [6], and space is not a concern [7] [8]) [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices [2] https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37435387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37435387 ("Solar and batteries are going to win, and our thinking needs to adjust") [4] https://www.pv-tech.org/nearly-1tw-of-renewables-in-us-interconnection-queues-as-wait-times-continue-to-grow/ https://www.pv-tech.org/nearly-1tw-of-renewables-in-us-inter... ("Nearly 1TW of renewables in US interconnection queues as wait times continue to grow) [5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/china-wind-solar-power-global-renewable-energy-leader https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/china-wind-sol... ("China is set to double its capacity and produce 1,200 gigawatts of energy through wind and solar power by 2025, reaching its 2030 goal five years ahead of time; ...as of the first quarter of the year, China’s utility-scale solar capacity has reached 228GW, more than that of the rest of the world combined.") [6] https://www.ku.ac.ae/two-minutes-of-sun-enough-to-power-a-year-s-usage-of-humanity-gulf-news https://www.ku.ac.ae/two-minutes-of-sun-enough-to-power-a-ye... [7] https://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/77565 https://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/77565 ("Land and Ocean Areas to Support a 100% Renewable Energy, Zero-Emissions, Regenerative Global Economy") [8] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37492062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37492062 ("Declining populations free up ag land for solar in densely populated countries")

javajosh 3y ago
Holy cow that lithium price graph is astounding! It's a log plot that looks like a linear decline in price. It's like Moore's law for lithium..
- hamburga 3y ago
  Moore’s Law is a special case of the more general “Law of Accelerating Returns.” > In my view, it is one manifestation (among many) of the exponential growth of the evolutionary process that is technology. https://www.thekurzweillibrary.com/the-law-of-accelerating-returns https://www.thekurzweillibrary.com/the-law-of-accelerating-r...
xnx 3y ago
Great charts. I hope they update them for current years soon. I'm not sure if: the trend continued (because of technologic progress and the learning curve), the trend reversed (because of supply chain issues), or stayed the same because of the combined effects of those 2.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
Very informative. Note from your 4th link I wasn't previously aware what "interconnection queues" were. This is a good overview: https://emp.lbl.gov/queues https://emp.lbl.gov/queues. Importantly, though, only a small percentage of that capacity "in queue" will actually get built. From your link: > Much of this proposed capacity will ultimately not be built, however, with only 23% of projects seeking connection from 2000 to 2016 having subsequently been built based on a LBNL analysis of a subset of queues. Only ISO-NE and ERCOT exceeded 30% completion rates, with CAISO performing the worst at 13%.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Good callout wrt queue completion ratios. Unfortunately, there aren't many comparable leading indicators of future generation to rely on (maybe EIA's 860M survey? [1] [2], but it only gives you a short look into the future). Plans are plans until steel is in the ground and glass is getting racked. Open to other suggestions if it improves modeling and forecasting. Regardless, the amount of renewables and batteries coming online (at least in the US) can't be overstated [3]. [1] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860m/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860m/ [2] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/ [3] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c.png https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c...

tuatoru 3y ago

No, not mind-boggling at all. It's about a tenth of what is required to meet governments' signed-up-for targets for limiting global average temperature rise to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial. For reference about 2% of global GDP is spent on new fossil fuel mining and drilling investment, and another 2-4% on the fuels (including refining).

somsak2 3y ago
I would have expected the ratio of $ spent on new fossil fuels vs. new solar to be a lot higher than 4. My mind is quite boggled.
itishappy 3y ago
A 10x increase is about 6 years at the current growth rate. That's mind-boggling. It can also be not enough. They're not mutually exclusive.
oezi 3y ago
The figure I like to quote is that we need 2 to 5% of GDP spend per year to get to net zero by 2050. We already pretty much passed 1.5C anyway, right?
- tuatoru 3y ago
  Yes. If we were spending 5% of global GDP on Solar and Wind now, there'd be a slim chance. Scaling up to that in six years, as a sibling comment claims, is way too late.

marcosdumay 3y ago

Jevon's paradox is one hell of a thing. When you suddenly make something very cheap, a lot of people suddenly start wanting a lot of it. What you are seeing is basically the consequence of solar changing from not the cheapest power source available into the cheapest power source available. Immediately, everybody that would invest into something else changed into solar.