3 ms·

> A 10x fall in solar and at least a 5x fall in the cost of batteries is baked in at this point, even if the tech curves started to slow today. I'm sorry, what

> A 10x fall in solar and at least a 5x fall in the cost of batteries is baked in at this point, even if the tech curves started to slow today. I'm sorry, what does this mean? Yes, solar and batteries got much, much cheaper, and I agree, it might continue in that path, but to assume it will... I just don't see the rationale, not in general and not in your post.

epistasis 3y ago
I would assume that anybody on HN would be familiar with Moore's Law. The more general idea is Wright's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects And if they slow down, it's going to be gradual, not a sudden "oh we just finished the last of the innovation yesterday, we are done now" stop. Many people assumed that nuclear would have a positive learning curve, but instead it has turned out to have a negative learning curve, where it got more expensive the more it was built. In general, every body underestimates the advancements and installations of solar and battery to a degree that is nearly comical. It's incredibly consistent in the underestimation. If I could figure out the right trade to capitalize on that, I'd be much richer...
- rich_sasha 3y ago
  To me this is sadly a lot of wishful thinking and extrapolation. It might happen, but to assume it will is madness to me. Especially given all of solar panels, wind turbines and batteries being material-heavy and requiring a non-diminishing amount of labour per installation. By contrast, if you increase transistor density, you don't need to use more silicon. All such estimates are backwards-looking, and it's true, historically people assumed much lower growth rates. But equally, if you assume this rate of cost decrease as infinitum, well, global warming is solved and we can out our feet up. There are plenty of things that got cheaper, then didn't. Cars, laptops, phones, healthcare... I admit it's a common trope to simply take some number N~10 and claim renewable energy will inevitably become Nx cheaper. It just seems delusional to me to take it as a fact.
  - epistasis 3y ago
    > solar panels, wind turbines and batteries being material-heavy and requiring a non-diminishing amount of labour per installation. This is not correct, a good chunk of the lowering costs comes from lowering both the amount of material used and in further decreases in the amount of labor to install. That's the fundamental source of innovation driving down prices. To assume that there's going to be a sudden stoppage of all these improvements, without at least some sort of slowdown first, requires an astonishing strong belief not backed by any sort of inspection into the actual reality of these things. It's rather remarkable how absolutely pessimistic people are about renewables in spite of the evidence, and how people are proven wrong year after year with their bad assumptions, but there's so little learning. Go and find the most optimistic person about the potential of solar and batteries, and there's a 90% chance that solar and batteries will outperform their expectations. Go and find the most pessimistic person's estimates about nuclear, and there's a 50% chance that nuclear will underperform their already low expectations. Just read through the tragedy of the original article to see how overly optimistic the nuclear folks are.
  - tstrimple 3y ago
    > To me this is sadly a lot of wishful thinking and extrapolation. It might happen, but to assume it will is madness to me. To me it's madness to ignore the evidence directly in front of you and continue to put all your hopes in a dead-end technology. The idea that we need to spend billions on billions of dollars in decades long super projects while renewables grow by leaps and bounds every year is madness. We have an observable reality. We'd be far better off if we'd pay attention to that reality and make decisions based off of it rather than holding on to some sci-fi promises from decades ago. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices

epistasis 3y ago

I would assume that anybody on HN would be familiar with Moore's Law. The more general idea is Wright's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects And if they slow down, it's going to be gradual, not a sudden "oh we just finished the last of the innovation yesterday, we are done now" stop. Many people assumed that nuclear would have a positive learning curve, but instead it has turned out to have a negative learning curve, where it got more expensive the more it was built. In general, every body underestimates the advancements and installations of solar and battery to a degree that is nearly comical. It's incredibly consistent in the underestimation. If I could figure out the right trade to capitalize on that, I'd be much richer...

rich_sasha 3y ago
To me this is sadly a lot of wishful thinking and extrapolation. It might happen, but to assume it will is madness to me. Especially given all of solar panels, wind turbines and batteries being material-heavy and requiring a non-diminishing amount of labour per installation. By contrast, if you increase transistor density, you don't need to use more silicon. All such estimates are backwards-looking, and it's true, historically people assumed much lower growth rates. But equally, if you assume this rate of cost decrease as infinitum, well, global warming is solved and we can out our feet up. There are plenty of things that got cheaper, then didn't. Cars, laptops, phones, healthcare... I admit it's a common trope to simply take some number N~10 and claim renewable energy will inevitably become Nx cheaper. It just seems delusional to me to take it as a fact.
- epistasis 3y ago
  > solar panels, wind turbines and batteries being material-heavy and requiring a non-diminishing amount of labour per installation. This is not correct, a good chunk of the lowering costs comes from lowering both the amount of material used and in further decreases in the amount of labor to install. That's the fundamental source of innovation driving down prices. To assume that there's going to be a sudden stoppage of all these improvements, without at least some sort of slowdown first, requires an astonishing strong belief not backed by any sort of inspection into the actual reality of these things. It's rather remarkable how absolutely pessimistic people are about renewables in spite of the evidence, and how people are proven wrong year after year with their bad assumptions, but there's so little learning. Go and find the most optimistic person about the potential of solar and batteries, and there's a 90% chance that solar and batteries will outperform their expectations. Go and find the most pessimistic person's estimates about nuclear, and there's a 50% chance that nuclear will underperform their already low expectations. Just read through the tragedy of the original article to see how overly optimistic the nuclear folks are.
- tstrimple 3y ago
  > To me this is sadly a lot of wishful thinking and extrapolation. It might happen, but to assume it will is madness to me. To me it's madness to ignore the evidence directly in front of you and continue to put all your hopes in a dead-end technology. The idea that we need to spend billions on billions of dollars in decades long super projects while renewables grow by leaps and bounds every year is madness. We have an observable reality. We'd be far better off if we'd pay attention to that reality and make decisions based off of it rather than holding on to some sci-fi promises from decades ago. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices