4 ms·
The EIA (and the IEA) have historically underpredicted solar deploys, to a comical level. They need 2-4 years of spot on predictions before they can regain cred
by epistasis 3y ago
The EIA (and the IEA) have historically underpredicted solar deploys, to a comical level. They need 2-4 years of spot on predictions before they can regain credibility on their projections, IMHO.
So I would put these projections as a bare minimum floor on how much solar will get installed. The true number is likely quite a bit higher.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> would put these projections as a bare minimum floor on how much solar will get installed Is there evidence they haven't fixed this bias? The EIA and IEA are in general credible forecasters. Assuming past errors will persist doesn't sound like a good strategy unless you have methodological clues that they haven't made adjustments.
- apsec112 3y agoThis isn't like trying to beat the stock market. There's no intrinsic reason why their predictions should be any good, and in fact they've been comically bad, coming in too low every year for 21 consecutive years: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/10/09/iea-low-balls-solar-growth-again/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/10/09/iea-low-balls-solar-g... (this is from 2018, but the same trend has continued up through 2023)
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> no intrinsic reason why their predictions should be any good This is where the "generaly credible" bit comes in. They're good forecasters in other domains. Part of being a good forecaster is adjusting as you make errors. So we'd need a hypothesis for why they wouldn't be making those adjustments. As a trivial example, Hoekstra's chart shows the WEO serially predicting false plateaus between 2006 and 2018. Those plateaus are no longer the case for the IEA's solar predictions [1]. Again, not rejecting that this may be undershooting reality. But if your only evidence is past performance, that's likely oversimplistic. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-update-june-2023/executive-summary https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-update-j...
- scythe 3y agoThe link you're referring to only goes to next year, whereas the infamous pessimistic graphs tried to extrapolate for around a decade. I suppose capitulation would count as an adjustment.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> link you're referring to only goes to next year, whereas the infamous pessimistic graphs tried to extrapolate for around a decade This CleanTechnica article references the short-term energy outlook. The context is near-term forecasts. > capitulation would count as an adjustment What else would it be?
- epistasis 3y agoIf they are specifically bad in an area, with a very strong reputation, why should we assume that specific reputation would change to match the general reputation? Also, I'm not familiar with any projections that are generally good. Collecting existing data? Sure they are good at that. But projection is an entirely different skill set and I have not ever heard somebody cite great projections from EIA.
- DeRock 3y agoTheir predictions are comically bad, year after year they massively under appreciate the growth of solar. Just look at this graphic: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DsX2rpPW0AIVORG.jpg?name=orig https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DsX2rpPW0AIVORG.jpg?name=orig
- robertlagrant 3y agoYou don't want methodological clues. You just want to monitor their predictions and see if they get better.
- renewiltord 3y agoWell, we could try something with skin in the game. We could test our strategies. $1k to a charity of our choice 1:1? I'll say their best predictions today for capacity 2 years from now will be under the capacity 2 years from now. If you're in SF, I'll send someone to make a deal with you. It's not on Kalshi or we could have some fun.
- cycomanic 3y ago> > would put these projections as a bare minimum floor on how much solar will get installed > Is there evidence they haven't fixed this bias? The EIA and IEA are in general credible forecasters. Assuming past errors will persist doesn't sound like a good strategy unless you have methodological clues that they haven't made adjustments. I would contest the credible forecaster label when it comes to solar. By now we require evidence that they fixed their biases. If somebody gets something so badly wrong for over 20 years why should we assume they suddenly fixed their models. All historical evidence points to the contrary.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ctoth 3y agoNo, 2050 isn't some sort of tipping point[0]. [0]: https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/to-avoid-the-worst-impacts-of-climate https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/to-avoid-the-worst-impacts-...