5 ms·

Why everyone missed solar's exponential growth

46 points by xbmcuser 2y ago

ggm 2y ago
I think forecasters are scared of exponentials. If they project a linear, for the immediate short term they get better wins. The problem is that planning often maps out 5+ years and if you miss the doubling potential in the explosive growth you basically mis-planned. People want independence from the billing cycle. With the decline in systems reliability overall, having your own solar "feels" like it helps. That absent batteries it may not, and that it also has causative qualities to the systems reliability isn't material. Its what people feel about it. The fear in the asset holders over being stranded is huge. Down here in Australia unavoidable systems charges are not the majority of most people's bills, as the semi-hemi-private-regulated market operators rush to get profit out of the capex. If you can afford to go battery+solar, the cost to unbind from the net is also a huge dis-incentive. Better to stay connected, pay service charge, and find an aggregator to arbitrage your load into a value proposition. The whole "Chyna is stealing our solar lunch" thing is tiresome. If they want to dump solar panels on the world, I say go for it: The more the merrier.
roenxi 2y ago
> So wrong, in fact, that when I recently offered a $1,000 bet on solar’s explosive growth, not a single expert would take me up on it. Doesn't that mean the forecasters agreed with this gentleman? He bet $1,000 that he is right and nobody wanted to bet against that. I'll also say that forecasters, by the nature of their role, basically just project status quo forward for whatever their time horizon is. They generally don't have a good vantage point to spot fundamental market shifts. You have to be brave to bet on an exponential trend holding since when they end they end suddenly.
- BLKNSLVR 2y ago
  I'm going to say that that's accurate when you replace 'forecasters' with 'economists'. It's why things don't change as quickly as they could, because: - The economic data suggests.. - Economists agree that... If it relies on history to guess the future, you're mostly going to get history as the result. Somewhat analgous to science progressing on funeral at a time.
7e 2y ago
Anything that grows exponentially is going to suffer comically wrong forecasts if over a long enough time horizon, like 3-5 years. It's almost impossible to get the exponent exactly right, and the error grows very quickly.
entropicgravity 2y ago
log log has been a thing for several decades.
farseer 2y ago
Without further reduction in battery costs, this exponential growth will turn linear again.
- jillesvangurp 2y ago
  You are right on that. But of course, there is no basis for assuming battery cost won't decrease anytime soon. We're looking at decades of progress coming from material science research, economies of scale and learning effects, entirely new battery chemistries coming to market, etc. Any plan that assumes none of that is going to happen would be pretty weak.
tedunangst 2y ago
But why? I feel like I just read an overlong answer to "why did the soccer player miss the goal?" that amounts to "the ball went the wrong way."
- avip 2y ago
  You’re overthinking. It’s just a PR piece
ashoeafoot 2y ago
What is needed though is the either storage of energy (batteries) or the redistribution of consumption (robot butlers pushing peak evening consumption forward in the day).
taeric 2y ago
I keep feeling a bit of this is how much less energy modern things need over the past. Obviously, industrial use has gone way up. Basics in a household, though, were trending surprisingly down. Modern lights and general entertainment are thankfully low in energy.
Animats 2y ago
The next thing is what's happening in batteries. Solar panels are great, but you need storage to go with them. Battery prices dropped about an order of magnitude over 12 years.[1] Energy density continues to improve. At some point, one of the half-dozen companies trying to get production cost down for solid-state batteries will probably succeed. That gets about 2x the energy density per unit weight over lithium-ion, plus charging times under 10 minutes. Then fast chargers can replace gas pumps on a one for one basis. Fixed energy storage doesn't need more density, just lower prices. Lithium iron phosphate batteries are just fine for that. Retail chains with huge flat roofs (Walmart, Target, etc.) are going in heavily for solar and batteries.[2] The power bill for air-conditioning those huge spaces quickly justifies it. This is now entirely driven by the economics. No more need for subsidies. [1] https://www.statista.com/chart/23807/lithium-ion-battery-prices/ https://www.statista.com/chart/23807/lithium-ion-battery-pri... [2] https://electrek.co/2024/11/19/corporate-america-is-investing-in-record-levels-of-solar-and-storage/ https://electrek.co/2024/11/19/corporate-america-is-investin...
grecy 2y ago
There is also an enormous amount of money tied up in old power, guaranteed profits for companies that run old plants and political games denying climate change and turning the population against renewables. Nobody wants to predict a future they know will be unpopular and make a lot of people angry. I.e. when I say you won’t even be able to buy a new ICE vehicle on roughly 10 years people get very confrontational and angry
- reererer 2y ago
  I don't get why people get confrontational about not being able to buy a new ICE vehicle. Who cares about that, if you can buy an electric vehicle with similar performance for the same money? It's actually a superior choice, since you can easily install a charger into your home, while you can't turn your home into a gas station easily.
  - troupo 2y ago
    How can I install a charger for my car in my apartment? With ICE I can drive to the nearest gas station and be done in 5 minutes. With ICE I don't even think about it, I just drive to a station that's on the way to wherever I'm going
    - pornel 2y ago
      This problem is already solved in places with more developed infrastructure: • Workplaces can have chargers in their parking lots. In places where cars are parked for many hours, slow chargers are sufficient, which makes them relatively cheap and easy to install, so they can be plentiful. • Malls, supermarkets, gyms, restaurants, etc. can have medium and high power chargers. BEVs need 20-30 minutes to recharge from a high power charger. You can do your weekly shopping while your car recharges. • Charging posts can be installed along roads with on-street parking. In some places even lamp posts can be modified to have charging sockets. Modern EVs used for commuting need to be charged only about once a week (BEVs are most efficient in city driving, and the median US commute is 1/10th of good BEVs city range). With the infrastructure in place, daily use of BEVs is more convenient than ICE, because you never need to go to a gas station. BEVs charge unattended, so you don't even spend the 5 minutes refuelling. You plug your car in and leave to do whatever you wanted to do at the destination you were going to anyway.
Quothling 2y ago
Working in an investment bank that's build around 800 solar plants over the world in the previous decade with steep competition from a lot of other investors I'd argue that not everyone missed it. The next big boom is in battery storage, but the projects and investments took off a year or two ago with production factories nearing completion. Part of what shot it up was when various EU countries raised their green energy targets from 60-80%. In Germany alone that will require a 800% growth for battery storage financials before 2030. I'm not sure which semi-professional to professional investors missed that here in Europe though. In fact we've seen so many companies shoot up around these things that the recent economic downturns is causing quite a lot of bankruptcies. Which are then bought up by larger investment funds. From a tech perspective... There is going to be a lot of potential in building the technical layer between a plant and the "internet". None of the current systems, including market leaders that I'm not going to name drop, aren't very good. Part of the reason is because things like inverters and other solar plant tech has absolutely no standardization. They are ridiculously different, meaning you need actual programmers to onboard each plant unless someone builds some form of engineering standard. Currently it seems like each piece of tech basically has it's software designed by the individual engineer who made it. What is even more hilarious is that the systems made for solar, wind, batteries and so on don't work together.
- qwerki 2y ago
  I'm working in the "plant" to "internet" space you mentioned and seeing this first-hand. Would be very keen to have a chat if you have the time please. Email in bio.
  - sam_lowry_ 2y ago
    So, you are the guy exposing us to adverse foreign actors? How would you feel about being charged with treason in a few years? And I am only half-joking, see https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/the-gigantic-unregulated-power-plants-in-the-cloud/ https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/the-gigantic-unregulated-p... for the explanation.
    - 2y ago
tim333 2y ago
>Why everyone missed solar’s exponential growth As someone who follows Kurzweil that seems odd as he predicted it accurately well ahead of time (eg https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2016/03/futurist-ray-kurzweil-predicts-solar-industry-dominance-12-years/ https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2016/03/futurist-ray-k... ) For me the more interesting question is why are people in denial about Kurzweil's tech predictions? And this author presumably unaware of them. Even if you personally think the man's a crank, his basic procedure of plotting tech growth on a log scale and doing an extrapolation isn't really rocket science. And most are still in denial about the singularity/immortality stuff. Prepare for a lot of 'why everyone missed' articles on that in a decade or two. (https://www.wired.com/story/big-interview-ray-kurzweil/ https://www.wired.com/story/big-interview-ray-kurzweil/)
- SAI_Peregrinus 2y ago
  The main issue I have with Kurzweil's predictions is that they assume exponential growth, instead of sigmoid. Exponential growth doesn't really happen in physical processes, eventually they run out of inputs & level off. The hard part of predictions is figuring out where they level off.
  - tim333 2y ago
    Fair enough. I find he mostly tries to stick to the exponential bits and avoid things that are about to level out. Like he focuses on compute per dollar that can run a lot and not on Moore's transistors per unit area which is already getting close to atomic limits. Where I find him to go off the rails a bit is anything that's not an exponential extrapolation, like I've never really seen the nanobots thing.

46 points by xbmcuser 2y ago

ggm 2y ago

I think forecasters are scared of exponentials. If they project a linear, for the immediate short term they get better wins. The problem is that planning often maps out 5+ years and if you miss the doubling potential in the explosive growth you basically mis-planned. People want independence from the billing cycle. With the decline in systems reliability overall, having your own solar "feels" like it helps. That absent batteries it may not, and that it also has causative qualities to the systems reliability isn't material. Its what people feel about it. The fear in the asset holders over being stranded is huge. Down here in Australia unavoidable systems charges are not the majority of most people's bills, as the semi-hemi-private-regulated market operators rush to get profit out of the capex. If you can afford to go battery+solar, the cost to unbind from the net is also a huge dis-incentive. Better to stay connected, pay service charge, and find an aggregator to arbitrage your load into a value proposition. The whole "Chyna is stealing our solar lunch" thing is tiresome. If they want to dump solar panels on the world, I say go for it: The more the merrier.

roenxi 2y ago

> So wrong, in fact, that when I recently offered a $1,000 bet on solar’s explosive growth, not a single expert would take me up on it. Doesn't that mean the forecasters agreed with this gentleman? He bet $1,000 that he is right and nobody wanted to bet against that. I'll also say that forecasters, by the nature of their role, basically just project status quo forward for whatever their time horizon is. They generally don't have a good vantage point to spot fundamental market shifts. You have to be brave to bet on an exponential trend holding since when they end they end suddenly.

BLKNSLVR 2y ago
I'm going to say that that's accurate when you replace 'forecasters' with 'economists'. It's why things don't change as quickly as they could, because: - The economic data suggests.. - Economists agree that... If it relies on history to guess the future, you're mostly going to get history as the result. Somewhat analgous to science progressing on funeral at a time.

7e 2y ago

Anything that grows exponentially is going to suffer comically wrong forecasts if over a long enough time horizon, like 3-5 years. It's almost impossible to get the exponent exactly right, and the error grows very quickly.

entropicgravity 2y ago

log log has been a thing for several decades.

farseer 2y ago

Without further reduction in battery costs, this exponential growth will turn linear again.

jillesvangurp 2y ago
You are right on that. But of course, there is no basis for assuming battery cost won't decrease anytime soon. We're looking at decades of progress coming from material science research, economies of scale and learning effects, entirely new battery chemistries coming to market, etc. Any plan that assumes none of that is going to happen would be pretty weak.

tedunangst 2y ago

But why? I feel like I just read an overlong answer to "why did the soccer player miss the goal?" that amounts to "the ball went the wrong way."

avip 2y ago
You’re overthinking. It’s just a PR piece

ashoeafoot 2y ago

What is needed though is the either storage of energy (batteries) or the redistribution of consumption (robot butlers pushing peak evening consumption forward in the day).

taeric 2y ago

I keep feeling a bit of this is how much less energy modern things need over the past. Obviously, industrial use has gone way up. Basics in a household, though, were trending surprisingly down. Modern lights and general entertainment are thankfully low in energy.

Animats 2y ago

The next thing is what's happening in batteries. Solar panels are great, but you need storage to go with them. Battery prices dropped about an order of magnitude over 12 years.[1] Energy density continues to improve. At some point, one of the half-dozen companies trying to get production cost down for solid-state batteries will probably succeed. That gets about 2x the energy density per unit weight over lithium-ion, plus charging times under 10 minutes. Then fast chargers can replace gas pumps on a one for one basis. Fixed energy storage doesn't need more density, just lower prices. Lithium iron phosphate batteries are just fine for that. Retail chains with huge flat roofs (Walmart, Target, etc.) are going in heavily for solar and batteries.[2] The power bill for air-conditioning those huge spaces quickly justifies it. This is now entirely driven by the economics. No more need for subsidies. [1] https://www.statista.com/chart/23807/lithium-ion-battery-prices/ https://www.statista.com/chart/23807/lithium-ion-battery-pri... [2] https://electrek.co/2024/11/19/corporate-america-is-investing-in-record-levels-of-solar-and-storage/ https://electrek.co/2024/11/19/corporate-america-is-investin...

grecy 2y ago

There is also an enormous amount of money tied up in old power, guaranteed profits for companies that run old plants and political games denying climate change and turning the population against renewables. Nobody wants to predict a future they know will be unpopular and make a lot of people angry. I.e. when I say you won’t even be able to buy a new ICE vehicle on roughly 10 years people get very confrontational and angry

reererer 2y ago
I don't get why people get confrontational about not being able to buy a new ICE vehicle. Who cares about that, if you can buy an electric vehicle with similar performance for the same money? It's actually a superior choice, since you can easily install a charger into your home, while you can't turn your home into a gas station easily.
- troupo 2y ago
  How can I install a charger for my car in my apartment? With ICE I can drive to the nearest gas station and be done in 5 minutes. With ICE I don't even think about it, I just drive to a station that's on the way to wherever I'm going
  - pornel 2y ago
    This problem is already solved in places with more developed infrastructure: • Workplaces can have chargers in their parking lots. In places where cars are parked for many hours, slow chargers are sufficient, which makes them relatively cheap and easy to install, so they can be plentiful. • Malls, supermarkets, gyms, restaurants, etc. can have medium and high power chargers. BEVs need 20-30 minutes to recharge from a high power charger. You can do your weekly shopping while your car recharges. • Charging posts can be installed along roads with on-street parking. In some places even lamp posts can be modified to have charging sockets. Modern EVs used for commuting need to be charged only about once a week (BEVs are most efficient in city driving, and the median US commute is 1/10th of good BEVs city range). With the infrastructure in place, daily use of BEVs is more convenient than ICE, because you never need to go to a gas station. BEVs charge unattended, so you don't even spend the 5 minutes refuelling. You plug your car in and leave to do whatever you wanted to do at the destination you were going to anyway.

Quothling 2y ago

Working in an investment bank that's build around 800 solar plants over the world in the previous decade with steep competition from a lot of other investors I'd argue that not everyone missed it. The next big boom is in battery storage, but the projects and investments took off a year or two ago with production factories nearing completion. Part of what shot it up was when various EU countries raised their green energy targets from 60-80%. In Germany alone that will require a 800% growth for battery storage financials before 2030. I'm not sure which semi-professional to professional investors missed that here in Europe though. In fact we've seen so many companies shoot up around these things that the recent economic downturns is causing quite a lot of bankruptcies. Which are then bought up by larger investment funds. From a tech perspective... There is going to be a lot of potential in building the technical layer between a plant and the "internet". None of the current systems, including market leaders that I'm not going to name drop, aren't very good. Part of the reason is because things like inverters and other solar plant tech has absolutely no standardization. They are ridiculously different, meaning you need actual programmers to onboard each plant unless someone builds some form of engineering standard. Currently it seems like each piece of tech basically has it's software designed by the individual engineer who made it. What is even more hilarious is that the systems made for solar, wind, batteries and so on don't work together.

qwerki 2y ago
I'm working in the "plant" to "internet" space you mentioned and seeing this first-hand. Would be very keen to have a chat if you have the time please. Email in bio.
- sam_lowry_ 2y ago
  So, you are the guy exposing us to adverse foreign actors? How would you feel about being charged with treason in a few years? And I am only half-joking, see https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/the-gigantic-unregulated-power-plants-in-the-cloud/ https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/the-gigantic-unregulated-p... for the explanation.
  - 2y ago

tim333 2y ago

>Why everyone missed solar’s exponential growth As someone who follows Kurzweil that seems odd as he predicted it accurately well ahead of time (eg https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2016/03/futurist-ray-kurzweil-predicts-solar-industry-dominance-12-years/ https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2016/03/futurist-ray-k... ) For me the more interesting question is why are people in denial about Kurzweil's tech predictions? And this author presumably unaware of them. Even if you personally think the man's a crank, his basic procedure of plotting tech growth on a log scale and doing an extrapolation isn't really rocket science. And most are still in denial about the singularity/immortality stuff. Prepare for a lot of 'why everyone missed' articles on that in a decade or two. (https://www.wired.com/story/big-interview-ray-kurzweil/ https://www.wired.com/story/big-interview-ray-kurzweil/)

SAI_Peregrinus 2y ago
The main issue I have with Kurzweil's predictions is that they assume exponential growth, instead of sigmoid. Exponential growth doesn't really happen in physical processes, eventually they run out of inputs & level off. The hard part of predictions is figuring out where they level off.
- tim333 2y ago
  Fair enough. I find he mostly tries to stick to the exponential bits and avoid things that are about to level out. Like he focuses on compute per dollar that can run a lot and not on Moore's transistors per unit area which is already getting close to atomic limits. Where I find him to go off the rails a bit is anything that's not an exponential extrapolation, like I've never really seen the nanobots thing.