5 ms·

Contrast with the notorious IAE solar forecast: https://zenmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/iea-vs-reality-photovoltaics-2018.png https://zenmo.com/wp-content/

by tux3 3y ago

Contrast with the notorious IAE solar forecast: https://zenmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/iea-vs-reality-photovoltaics-2018.png https://zenmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/iea-vs-reality-... Statistics and modeling are complicated, granted. But when your model diverges from reality 5 years in a row, perhaps you should just extrapolate the current line next time around. (In the case of the Itanic, that would have been the line at 0. Still a better forecast than what they did!)

duskwuff 3y ago
> Contrast with the notorious IAE solar forecast "There's no way this level of growth can be sustainable." "Surely we've hit a stable level by now." "Maybe that last year was a fluke." Love to see it. :)
- MBCook 3y ago
  The motorcar is a fad! Surely after 115 years it will be over!
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- jodrellblank 3y ago
  > ""There's no way this level of growth can be sustainable."" Those are GW of added capacity per year, their prediction flatlining is predicting sustaining the same level of growth.
  - duskwuff 3y ago
    And yet, they were still (mis)predicting that each year would be an inflection point on that growth.
mahkeiro 3y ago
Especially funny when you know that the figure for 2022 is 320GW which is completely off this chart!
- riffraff 3y ago
  Were the post 2018 projections still this wrong? I'd love to see an updated chart
cbmuser 3y ago
[flagged]
- genmud 3y ago
  This makes their modeling errors even more egregious and embarrassing. If you know governments are subsidizing it, and there are no foreseeable plans to cut said subsidies, you would be a fool to not forecast growth.
- photonerd 3y ago
  Wait until you learn about the oil industry…
- the_why_of_y 3y ago
  The governments have to subsidize solar, so it can compete with government subsidized fossil fuels. You may be surprised to learn that global fossil fuel subsidies rose from $4.5 trillion in 2015 to $7 trillion in 2022. https://www.statista.com/chart/31016/volume-of-global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-timeline/ https://www.statista.com/chart/31016/volume-of-global-fossil...
  - vasdae 3y ago
    "Indirect subsidies" sounds like a dubious metric.
    - dtech 3y ago
      Why? If you tax A and not B, that is not much different from taxing both but subsidizing B. Most reasonable definitions of subsidies include it.
eigenvalue 3y ago
In this situation I would assume that the political/internal pressures from the member companies and advisory board were dominating factors as opposed to the forecasters being total dummies. There must have been some reasons why it was not appealing to assume the growth could keep ramping like that. Because it’s an obviously insane forecast after the first few data points are in.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  I'd love to hear someone chip in with what it takes to make a solar panel and the rate limiting factors. E.g. if a solar panel factory (simplifying into a single entity) already exists, is there any reason not to run it at 100% production capacity? What consumables are used?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - adrianN 3y ago
    Solar panels are just doped silicon, some wiring and support frames.
    - jnsaff2 3y ago
      Silicon for solar panels has to be 99.999999 percent pure—six 9s after the decimal. Computer chips are even more demanding. Their silicon needs to be 99.99999999999 percent pure—eleven 9s.
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        How consumable-intensive is doped silicone production? Afaik, it's more strict metallurgy (materialurgy?): temperature, time, some physical process. Point being, I'd be curious on the actual cost of material inputs, if the price of solar panels crashes. How low can they go... and still be worth making?
        3y ago

by tux3 3y ago

duskwuff 3y ago

> Contrast with the notorious IAE solar forecast "There's no way this level of growth can be sustainable." "Surely we've hit a stable level by now." "Maybe that last year was a fluke." Love to see it. :)

MBCook 3y ago
The motorcar is a fad! Surely after 115 years it will be over!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
jodrellblank 3y ago
> ""There's no way this level of growth can be sustainable."" Those are GW of added capacity per year, their prediction flatlining is predicting sustaining the same level of growth.
- duskwuff 3y ago
  And yet, they were still (mis)predicting that each year would be an inflection point on that growth.

mahkeiro 3y ago

Especially funny when you know that the figure for 2022 is 320GW which is completely off this chart!

riffraff 3y ago
Were the post 2018 projections still this wrong? I'd love to see an updated chart

cbmuser 3y ago

[flagged]

genmud 3y ago
This makes their modeling errors even more egregious and embarrassing. If you know governments are subsidizing it, and there are no foreseeable plans to cut said subsidies, you would be a fool to not forecast growth.
photonerd 3y ago
Wait until you learn about the oil industry…
the_why_of_y 3y ago
The governments have to subsidize solar, so it can compete with government subsidized fossil fuels. You may be surprised to learn that global fossil fuel subsidies rose from $4.5 trillion in 2015 to $7 trillion in 2022. https://www.statista.com/chart/31016/volume-of-global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-timeline/ https://www.statista.com/chart/31016/volume-of-global-fossil...
- vasdae 3y ago
  "Indirect subsidies" sounds like a dubious metric.
  - dtech 3y ago
    Why? If you tax A and not B, that is not much different from taxing both but subsidizing B. Most reasonable definitions of subsidies include it.

eigenvalue 3y ago

In this situation I would assume that the political/internal pressures from the member companies and advisory board were dominating factors as opposed to the forecasters being total dummies. There must have been some reasons why it was not appealing to assume the growth could keep ramping like that. Because it’s an obviously insane forecast after the first few data points are in.

ethbr1 3y ago
I'd love to hear someone chip in with what it takes to make a solar panel and the rate limiting factors. E.g. if a solar panel factory (simplifying into a single entity) already exists, is there any reason not to run it at 100% production capacity? What consumables are used?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- adrianN 3y ago
  Solar panels are just doped silicon, some wiring and support frames.
  - jnsaff2 3y ago
    Silicon for solar panels has to be 99.999999 percent pure—six 9s after the decimal. Computer chips are even more demanding. Their silicon needs to be 99.99999999999 percent pure—eleven 9s.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      How consumable-intensive is doped silicone production? Afaik, it's more strict metallurgy (materialurgy?): temperature, time, some physical process. Point being, I'd be curious on the actual cost of material inputs, if the price of solar panels crashes. How low can they go... and still be worth making?
      - 3y ago