3 ms·

Here is the graph of exponential installed solar capacity [1]. Like Moore’s law, continuous technological innovation and investment will be required to keep the

Here is the graph of exponential installed solar capacity [1]. Like Moore’s law, continuous technological innovation and investment will be required to keep the pace. We just hit 1 terawatt— and doubling time seems to be about every 3 years. So… 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,512,1028, 2056 terawatts in 30 years? With 20% capacity, that’s equivalent to >300,000 Million Tons of Oil (MToE) per year. Current global energy consumption is 14,000 MToE [2]. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capacity https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capaci... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_supply_and_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_supply_and_consum...

sp332 3y ago
That chart ends at 2022, but 2023 was an even bigger year than you would expect from that curve, with over 500GW of new solar installed. https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2023/executive-summary https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2023/executive-summar...
- dr_dshiv 3y ago
  Also: “ In 2023, an estimated 96% of newly installed, utility-scale solar PV and onshore wind capacity had lower generation costs than new coal and natural gas plants. In addition, three-quarters of new wind and solar PV plants offered cheaper power than existing fossil fuel facilities.”
jandrese 3y ago
Ahh, the classic case of seeing the bottom half of an S curve and projecting it out to infinite exponential growth. The number of times things have experienced infinite exponential growth in all of history starting from the Big Bang: 0.
- ncr100 3y ago
  /jk just wait long enough and that zero will go to Infinity
- axus 3y ago
  Isn't the universe expanding exponentially since the Big Bang?
  - cma 3y ago
    The expansion rate slowed down dramatically after the big bang and then sped up again, from Wikipedia: > Cosmic expansion subsequently decelerated to much slower rates, until at around 9.8 billion years after the Big Bang (4 billion years ago) it began to gradually expand more quickly, and is still doing so.
- mikepurvis 3y ago
  Sure, but until we see the inflection point we can't know how much longer the bottom half of the S curve lasts— it might be 2, 5, 10 years, or it might have already passed; either way we'll only know in retrospect. Those different options make a big difference on how much PV is part of the long term global energy picture.
- spywaregorilla 3y ago
  Ah the classic case of rounding a two digit number to infinity to make a strawman point?
- feoren 3y ago
  Nobody said "infinite". The upper asymptote of an S-curve is often called its "carrying capacity". We expect an inflection point about halfway toward this point. What do you think the maximum capacity of global solar energy is? The total amount of solar energy hitting Earth is about 4.4 * 10^16 watts -- 44,000 Terawatts. If we covered 1% of the Earth in solar panels at a meager 10% efficiency, that's 44 Terawatts -- this is a reasonable low estimate for the "carrying capacity" from total solar irradiance. We're at about 1 Terawatt right now. A high estimate (remember, this is the absolute maximum) might be 10% of the Earth at 20% efficiency -- 880 Terawatts. Of course, if we run out of space on Earth, there's always more space in ... well, space. Another "carrying capacity" could be the materials needed for production. As TFA illustrates, we have enough different ways of producing solar panels that we are not anywhere near maxing this out either. So I think there's pretty good justification to think we're still at the very early part of this S-curve.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    > 44,000 TW Check your arithmetic; it's considerably more than that.
    - feoren 3y ago
      There's a considerable difference between the amount that hits the atmosphere and the amount that hits the surface of the Earth. My number includes average cloud cover. It's this order of magnitude, and a higher number only strengthens my point.
    - dr_dshiv 3y ago
      173,000 terawatts [1] So, 1% at 20% capacity is 346 terawatts. That seems like a reasonable upper limit for earth systems. [1] https://sos.noaa.gov/catalog/live-programs/energy-on-a-sphere/ https://sos.noaa.gov/catalog/live-programs/energy-on-a-spher...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
tnel77 3y ago
This gives me hope! Thank you for sharing!
addaon 3y ago
> So… 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,512,1028, 2056 terawatts in 30 years? What did 256 terawatts ever do to you?
pfdietz 3y ago
> So… 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,512,1028, 2056 terawatts Ah, a power series.
bufferoverflow 3y ago
> So… 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,512,1028, 2056 terawatt Multiplying by 2 is hard. Let's go shopping!
science4sail 3y ago
* That Wikipedia link gives an average global energy consumption of 4.810^12 watts (assuming 11.63 TWh per MToE). The solar insolation of Earth is about 210^17 watts The total power output of the Sun is about 410^26 watts. The total solar power output of the Milky Way galaxy is about 410^37 watts Assuming exponential growth and assuming 20% utilization, that gives us A fully solar economy in ~13 years * Kardashev Type 1 in ~59 years * Kardashev Type 2 in ~272 years * Kardashev Type 3 in ~381 years

sp332 3y ago

That chart ends at 2022, but 2023 was an even bigger year than you would expect from that curve, with over 500GW of new solar installed. https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2023/executive-summary https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2023/executive-summar...

dr_dshiv 3y ago
Also: “ In 2023, an estimated 96% of newly installed, utility-scale solar PV and onshore wind capacity had lower generation costs than new coal and natural gas plants. In addition, three-quarters of new wind and solar PV plants offered cheaper power than existing fossil fuel facilities.”

jandrese 3y ago

Ahh, the classic case of seeing the bottom half of an S curve and projecting it out to infinite exponential growth. The number of times things have experienced infinite exponential growth in all of history starting from the Big Bang: 0.

ncr100 3y ago
/jk just wait long enough and that zero will go to Infinity
axus 3y ago
Isn't the universe expanding exponentially since the Big Bang?
- cma 3y ago
  The expansion rate slowed down dramatically after the big bang and then sped up again, from Wikipedia: > Cosmic expansion subsequently decelerated to much slower rates, until at around 9.8 billion years after the Big Bang (4 billion years ago) it began to gradually expand more quickly, and is still doing so.
mikepurvis 3y ago
Sure, but until we see the inflection point we can't know how much longer the bottom half of the S curve lasts— it might be 2, 5, 10 years, or it might have already passed; either way we'll only know in retrospect. Those different options make a big difference on how much PV is part of the long term global energy picture.
spywaregorilla 3y ago
Ah the classic case of rounding a two digit number to infinity to make a strawman point?
feoren 3y ago
Nobody said "infinite". The upper asymptote of an S-curve is often called its "carrying capacity". We expect an inflection point about halfway toward this point. What do you think the maximum capacity of global solar energy is? The total amount of solar energy hitting Earth is about 4.4 * 10^16 watts -- 44,000 Terawatts. If we covered 1% of the Earth in solar panels at a meager 10% efficiency, that's 44 Terawatts -- this is a reasonable low estimate for the "carrying capacity" from total solar irradiance. We're at about 1 Terawatt right now. A high estimate (remember, this is the absolute maximum) might be 10% of the Earth at 20% efficiency -- 880 Terawatts. Of course, if we run out of space on Earth, there's always more space in ... well, space. Another "carrying capacity" could be the materials needed for production. As TFA illustrates, we have enough different ways of producing solar panels that we are not anywhere near maxing this out either. So I think there's pretty good justification to think we're still at the very early part of this S-curve.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  > 44,000 TW Check your arithmetic; it's considerably more than that.
  - feoren 3y ago
    There's a considerable difference between the amount that hits the atmosphere and the amount that hits the surface of the Earth. My number includes average cloud cover. It's this order of magnitude, and a higher number only strengthens my point.
  - dr_dshiv 3y ago
    173,000 terawatts [1] So, 1% at 20% capacity is 346 terawatts. That seems like a reasonable upper limit for earth systems. [1] https://sos.noaa.gov/catalog/live-programs/energy-on-a-sphere/ https://sos.noaa.gov/catalog/live-programs/energy-on-a-spher...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

tnel77 3y ago

This gives me hope! Thank you for sharing!

addaon 3y ago

> So… 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,512,1028, 2056 terawatts in 30 years? What did 256 terawatts ever do to you?

pfdietz 3y ago

> So… 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,512,1028, 2056 terawatts Ah, a power series.

bufferoverflow 3y ago

> So… 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,512,1028, 2056 terawatt Multiplying by 2 is hard. Let's go shopping!

science4sail 3y ago

* That Wikipedia link gives an average global energy consumption of 4.810^12 watts (assuming 11.63 TWh per MToE). The solar insolation of Earth is about 210^17 watts The total power output of the Sun is about 410^26 watts. The total solar power output of the Milky Way galaxy is about 410^37 watts Assuming exponential growth and assuming 20% utilization, that gives us A fully solar economy in ~13 years * Kardashev Type 1 in ~59 years * Kardashev Type 2 in ~272 years * Kardashev Type 3 in ~381 years