4 ms·

These are the guys that produced hilariously wrong forecasts for the solar market 12 years in a row. I'm going to go ahead and take their opinion with a grain o

These are the guys that produced hilariously wrong forecasts for the solar market 12 years in a row. I'm going to go ahead and take their opinion with a grain of salt. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/07/12/has-the-international-energy-agency-finally-improved-at-forecasting-solar-growth/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/07/12/has-the-international...

jnsaff2 3y ago
Yea, https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpLhuguXsA8YE8V?format=png&name=900x900 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpLhuguXsA8YE8V?format=png&name=...
- voisin 3y ago
  Nice graph. I’d love if they showed the level of what is needed to stay below 1.5C as per the title so the viewer could compare.
  - rsanek 3y ago
    my guess is that it's so high, it would change the scale so much and dwarf all the other data
    - voisin 3y ago
      Well I guess that’s sobering. It would still be nice to have some context given the current annual growth rate.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/unsupported.html https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/unsupported.html here is a great calculator^^
adamlett 3y ago
If you can’t spot a flaw in the facts or the arguments, I guess you can always cast doubt on the credibility of organizations presenting the facts and arguments. That way you don’t have to think about something that’s making you uncomfortable to think about.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  Well, is the organization in question not supposed be the expert that I could defer to when in doubt? As it stands, since I am not a person who is immersed in this technology, I would like to hear from someone with a decent track record. Now, it is true that the org in question, may have the facts to back up the arguments, but comes to the wrong conclusions, but it does not really help the advocates for one simple reason: "If the experts can't get right, how can I?".
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- baryphonic 3y ago
  The article didn't cite IEA making an argument or even presenting any facts; rather, it reported an assertion that carbon capture isn't enough. All we can go on is the credibility of IEA, which GP has argued – with citation – is wanting. The number one argument against this kind of doomerism is that we don't know what we don't know. Natural CO2 capture is why we have an oxygen atmosphere in the first place. That process wouldn't necessarily work today due to funguses and so on, but perhaps some technological breakthrough (genetically engineered trees? dense organic materials? who knows?) could work as soon as it is discovered.
  - adamlett 3y ago
    The article didn't cite IEA making an argument or even presenting any facts; rather, it reported an assertion that carbon capture isn't enough. Maybe we read different articles, because I distinctly remember reading in the article that the energy cost of CO2 capture to achieve status quo using current technology would require more energy than the world is currently producing (fact), which means the solution is unrealistic (argument). The number one argument against this kind of doomerism is that we don't know what we don't know If that's the number one argument, I appreciate that you don't go on to cite number two, and three, because those would have to be incredibly weak arguments. but perhaps some technological breakthrough (genetically engineered trees? dense organic materials? who knows?) could work as soon as it is discovered. It's also within the realm of possibilities that aliens will descend and use their superior technology to restore the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. But I would advice against a plan that could only succeed if this were to happen.
kitd 3y ago
That article also concludes that they have significantly improved with the most recent forecasts though. Edit: Here in the UK, we have been having the public enquiry into the UK's handling of the Covid pandemic. One thing that has come up frequently is that the scientists think about things from a scientific PoV, politicians from politics, economists from economics, etc, etc, but that what was lacking was a more coherent decision making body that was sufficiently skilled to look at all these as a whole. A bit like "clinical medicine" != "public health". It may well be that the IEA look at the subject from an energy resources PoV, but miss the political pressures that governments feel from climate-supporting electorates. And why shouldn't they, it's not their speciality. As pointed out in the article, their reports are one (albeit important) input into the larger solar energy policy decision making process.
- modeless 3y ago
  Check the sibling comment for a graph that claims otherwise. And even if they did change after more than a decade it doesn't give me confidence in new predictions from them.
- kragen 3y ago
  on the contrary, it's precisely the energy resources pov that would predict continued rapid growth in pv
  - kitd 3y ago
    Not if that growth was enabled by political or economic decisions outside the IEA's scope.
    - kragen 3y ago
      that makes no sense
acdha 3y ago
Skepticism is warranted but PV outlook is also a bit tricky since it’s similar to a massively scaled process and China was able to bring an enormous amount of capacity online. I’m not sure that there’s much possibility of that kind of curve for carbon capture.
- twoodfin 3y ago
  Given that the primary input to many carbon capture methods is energy, as long as PV keeps scaling (not guaranteed!) it should be possible to scale carbon capture along with it.
- kragen 3y ago
  yes there is

jnsaff2 3y ago

Yea, https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpLhuguXsA8YE8V?format=png&name=900x900 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpLhuguXsA8YE8V?format=png&name=...

voisin 3y ago
Nice graph. I’d love if they showed the level of what is needed to stay below 1.5C as per the title so the viewer could compare.
- rsanek 3y ago
  my guess is that it's so high, it would change the scale so much and dwarf all the other data
  - voisin 3y ago
    Well I guess that’s sobering. It would still be nice to have some context given the current annual growth rate.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/unsupported.html https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/unsupported.html here is a great calculator^^

adamlett 3y ago

If you can’t spot a flaw in the facts or the arguments, I guess you can always cast doubt on the credibility of organizations presenting the facts and arguments. That way you don’t have to think about something that’s making you uncomfortable to think about.

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
Well, is the organization in question not supposed be the expert that I could defer to when in doubt? As it stands, since I am not a person who is immersed in this technology, I would like to hear from someone with a decent track record. Now, it is true that the org in question, may have the facts to back up the arguments, but comes to the wrong conclusions, but it does not really help the advocates for one simple reason: "If the experts can't get right, how can I?".
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
baryphonic 3y ago
The article didn't cite IEA making an argument or even presenting any facts; rather, it reported an assertion that carbon capture isn't enough. All we can go on is the credibility of IEA, which GP has argued – with citation – is wanting. The number one argument against this kind of doomerism is that we don't know what we don't know. Natural CO2 capture is why we have an oxygen atmosphere in the first place. That process wouldn't necessarily work today due to funguses and so on, but perhaps some technological breakthrough (genetically engineered trees? dense organic materials? who knows?) could work as soon as it is discovered.
- adamlett 3y ago
  The article didn't cite IEA making an argument or even presenting any facts; rather, it reported an assertion that carbon capture isn't enough. Maybe we read different articles, because I distinctly remember reading in the article that the energy cost of CO2 capture to achieve status quo using current technology would require more energy than the world is currently producing (fact), which means the solution is unrealistic (argument). The number one argument against this kind of doomerism is that we don't know what we don't know If that's the number one argument, I appreciate that you don't go on to cite number two, and three, because those would have to be incredibly weak arguments. but perhaps some technological breakthrough (genetically engineered trees? dense organic materials? who knows?) could work as soon as it is discovered. It's also within the realm of possibilities that aliens will descend and use their superior technology to restore the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. But I would advice against a plan that could only succeed if this were to happen.

kitd 3y ago

That article also concludes that they have significantly improved with the most recent forecasts though. Edit: Here in the UK, we have been having the public enquiry into the UK's handling of the Covid pandemic. One thing that has come up frequently is that the scientists think about things from a scientific PoV, politicians from politics, economists from economics, etc, etc, but that what was lacking was a more coherent decision making body that was sufficiently skilled to look at all these as a whole. A bit like "clinical medicine" != "public health". It may well be that the IEA look at the subject from an energy resources PoV, but miss the political pressures that governments feel from climate-supporting electorates. And why shouldn't they, it's not their speciality. As pointed out in the article, their reports are one (albeit important) input into the larger solar energy policy decision making process.

modeless 3y ago
Check the sibling comment for a graph that claims otherwise. And even if they did change after more than a decade it doesn't give me confidence in new predictions from them.
kragen 3y ago
on the contrary, it's precisely the energy resources pov that would predict continued rapid growth in pv
- kitd 3y ago
  Not if that growth was enabled by political or economic decisions outside the IEA's scope.
  - kragen 3y ago
    that makes no sense

acdha 3y ago

Skepticism is warranted but PV outlook is also a bit tricky since it’s similar to a massively scaled process and China was able to bring an enormous amount of capacity online. I’m not sure that there’s much possibility of that kind of curve for carbon capture.

twoodfin 3y ago
Given that the primary input to many carbon capture methods is energy, as long as PV keeps scaling (not guaranteed!) it should be possible to scale carbon capture along with it.
kragen 3y ago
yes there is