Interesting perspective. Certainly not all assumptions of the pro-solar predictions may come to pass. Yes, there are significant issues such as geography, intermittency, high battery cost, etc. And yes, the exponential decrease in cost alone is not sufficient, but a necessary condition. Too much Techno-Optimism? Maybe.
And yet, some see the opposite happening, namely that most predictions of installed capacity are not "techno-optimistic" enough, i.e. they are systematically under-estimating future installed capacity (typically by 3x) and continuously revised-upwards after the fact. See for instance https://www.exponentialview.co/p/the-forecasters-gap
The claim there is that the forecast models do not include a theory of underlying change.
From the above post:
I do not believe that analytical skills are the missing ingredient in thinking about the future. Rather, I believe that imagination about the future and a theory of change that helps to describe it clearly, are what is needed to look ahead in a more compelling way. It is not a lack of computing power, so to speak, but a lack of programming.
"Prediction is hard, especially about the future." It will be interesting to follow which prediction (about future installed solar capacity) is more likely to pan out.
As I say in the article, predicting the future is hard. I admit that there is a non-zero chance the pro-solar predictions for the future are correct, but I think that they are more motivated by a Green ideology that wants to achieve Netzero by 2050 rather than a true technical and financial analysis of the best energy system.
In particular, solar supporters ignore that global fossil fuel usage is still increasing rapidly, so it really does not matter how fast solar increases. They have forgotten their goal and are obsessed with the means. Sometimes, the means do not accomplish the desired ends.
Yes, I think that Techno-Optimism is rampant among supporters of Green energy, perhaps more than any other industry. And they tend to ignore how much of their market is based on government subsidies, mandates, and ESG. My guess is that it will eventually hit reality when they run out of other people's money.
I tend to be a TechnoSkeptic and am publishing an article on why on November 26th.
I think that the key passage in the linked article is:
"I believe that imagination about the future and a theory of change that helps to describe it clearly."
This is clearly more based on faith than reason.
Faith can accomplish great things, but it can also destroy societies. I prefer to embrace reality and be pleasantly surprised if I am wrong. By the way, I am also skeptical about predictions of doom. I am skeptical, but not pessimistic.
It's good to be skeptical. And yes, faith can be both enabling and destructive.
First I want to emphasize that the above referenced article discusses not future forecasts with unknown outcome, but the forecasts over the last 15 years with known outcomes (consistently much higher than forecast at the time). The past can obviously be assessed based on facts, not faith.
As to the future, your comment about faith reminded me of Neil deGrasse-Tyson's three types of truth:
- Personal truth: what you hold true to yourself (religious belief)
- Political truth: what society holds true (laws, money, etc.)
- Objective truth: what the universe holds true (math, physics, etc.)
I think the faith in solar energy displacing fossil fuels falls into the middle category of political truths: If enough people abide by it, then it becomes true. That's why it's inherently hard to predict its trajectory. It is constrained by some objective truths (chemistry, geographical and historical facts, etc.), but it also critically depends on political truths and ultimately public opinion as shaped by millions of individuals.
I agree that some Green policies are misguided and show obsessed-with-the-means character. But over the long run (decades to centuries) I would find it very hard to bet against solar energy due to its abundance, sustainability, and increasing economic advantage (Swanson's Law, better batteries, transmission, etc.).
And I don't agree with your statement that "since fossil fuel usage is still increasing rapidly, so it really doesn't matter how fast solar increases". Unless you have a winner-take-all scenario - which energy sources clearly are not an example of - ongoing faster growth rates (here of solar energy) eventually determine which variant rises to the top.
I am not really interested in how accurate previous predictions on the growth of solar were. The key question is how much they have reduced global fossil fuel usage. As I mentioned, increased solar is in addition to increased fossil fuels, not instead of.
I disagree with de Grasse-Tyson. There is only one material reality, so there is only one Truth. He is talking in variations in opinions or faith. He also misses economics, which trumps all those opinions.
Tyson is well known for pretending his ideology is based on Science.
Economic sustainability always trumps environmental sustainability because the economic constraints get hit long before the environmental constraints.
It is absolutely not true that " If enough people abide by it, then it becomes true."
Tell that to the Communists, National Socialists, Fascists, Jacobins, etc.
Ideologues believe that, but in the end, they almost always fail, because their ideas conflict with material reality.
I never said this is a "winner take all." Obviously, there will be multiple energy sources. The question is whether solar can reduce global fossil fuel usage by 20-50%.
The rate of solar installs is greater because it is starting from a lower base. The overall amount of non-renewable is growing faster. So solar and wind actually keep falling behind.
And your example of "ongoing faster growth rates" assumes there is replacement, which there is not much of. Both are increasing fast, and that will likely be the case for the foreseeable future.
Also finishing this article and ones you have on this topic,would you consider the idea of Chinese nudging western nations to promote green energy policies and net zero is a baseless conspiracy? Because the difference between the starting goals and outcomes so far of net zero seem to stark to be explained solely by incompetent predictions and romantic optimism.
I am not sure that I understand your question. Do you mean that it is China that is covertly pushing the Green agenda?
If so, then no. The Green energy policies really got started in the 1990s. China was not at all influential in world affairs.
I will write an article on the subject, but here is what I think is going on:
1) An actual problem of climate change, but one that is far less severe than activists claim.
2) Once the problem was discovered by scientists, activists moved into the field of climate science and drove out alternative views.
3) Very unrealistic assumptions that go into the climate models. Ideological bias prevents them from updating those unrealistic assumptions.
4) Once the climate alarm caught on with the Left, it created an information cascade where everyone who started from Left-of-Center views became Green maximalists.
5) Left-of-Center parties found it very useful to simultaneously save the world, earn votes, and disburse money to supporters.
6) Government subsidies, mandates, and ESG created a huge "market" for Green energy manufacturers, utilities, and financial services companies who have a huge financial incentive to pursue government subsidies and mold public opinion to keep the cash flowing. It is very similar to defense contractors, but with far more money devoted to PR.
I hope that answers your question.
Once you combine unrealistic ideological goals to the profit motive, things can get out of control very quickly.
The problem with the late adopter strategy is that you need someone to be the the early one first ,and globally the us has historically fulfilled that role. It is rather discouraging that green energy so far is the best option the brightest minds globally have come up with to mitigate the devastating consequences of climate change.
I am confident that the Europeans will pour tens of billions of Euros into solar, wind, and utility-scale batteries. My guess is that China will spend even more. Any incremental advantage of the US doing so will have little effect on prices. The US should focus on denser energy sources.
Moreover, Green energy is actually an extremely uncost-effective means to deal with climate change. It is guaranteed to fail.
The reality is that massive change to our energy system will have very little change on future global temperatures:
Adaptation or some form of geo-engineering is likely far more cost-effective.
And even if mitigation is the goal, replacing coal-burning power plants with extremely-efficient Combined Cycle Natural Gas is far better, particularly in North America. The USA can also assist other nations to follow the same path.
Interesting perspective. Certainly not all assumptions of the pro-solar predictions may come to pass. Yes, there are significant issues such as geography, intermittency, high battery cost, etc. And yes, the exponential decrease in cost alone is not sufficient, but a necessary condition. Too much Techno-Optimism? Maybe.
And yet, some see the opposite happening, namely that most predictions of installed capacity are not "techno-optimistic" enough, i.e. they are systematically under-estimating future installed capacity (typically by 3x) and continuously revised-upwards after the fact. See for instance https://www.exponentialview.co/p/the-forecasters-gap
The claim there is that the forecast models do not include a theory of underlying change.
From the above post:
I do not believe that analytical skills are the missing ingredient in thinking about the future. Rather, I believe that imagination about the future and a theory of change that helps to describe it clearly, are what is needed to look ahead in a more compelling way. It is not a lack of computing power, so to speak, but a lack of programming.
"Prediction is hard, especially about the future." It will be interesting to follow which prediction (about future installed solar capacity) is more likely to pan out.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
As I say in the article, predicting the future is hard. I admit that there is a non-zero chance the pro-solar predictions for the future are correct, but I think that they are more motivated by a Green ideology that wants to achieve Netzero by 2050 rather than a true technical and financial analysis of the best energy system.
In particular, solar supporters ignore that global fossil fuel usage is still increasing rapidly, so it really does not matter how fast solar increases. They have forgotten their goal and are obsessed with the means. Sometimes, the means do not accomplish the desired ends.
Yes, I think that Techno-Optimism is rampant among supporters of Green energy, perhaps more than any other industry. And they tend to ignore how much of their market is based on government subsidies, mandates, and ESG. My guess is that it will eventually hit reality when they run out of other people's money.
I tend to be a TechnoSkeptic and am publishing an article on why on November 26th.
I think that the key passage in the linked article is:
"I believe that imagination about the future and a theory of change that helps to describe it clearly."
This is clearly more based on faith than reason.
Faith can accomplish great things, but it can also destroy societies. I prefer to embrace reality and be pleasantly surprised if I am wrong. By the way, I am also skeptical about predictions of doom. I am skeptical, but not pessimistic.
It's good to be skeptical. And yes, faith can be both enabling and destructive.
First I want to emphasize that the above referenced article discusses not future forecasts with unknown outcome, but the forecasts over the last 15 years with known outcomes (consistently much higher than forecast at the time). The past can obviously be assessed based on facts, not faith.
As to the future, your comment about faith reminded me of Neil deGrasse-Tyson's three types of truth:
- Personal truth: what you hold true to yourself (religious belief)
- Political truth: what society holds true (laws, money, etc.)
- Objective truth: what the universe holds true (math, physics, etc.)
I think the faith in solar energy displacing fossil fuels falls into the middle category of political truths: If enough people abide by it, then it becomes true. That's why it's inherently hard to predict its trajectory. It is constrained by some objective truths (chemistry, geographical and historical facts, etc.), but it also critically depends on political truths and ultimately public opinion as shaped by millions of individuals.
I agree that some Green policies are misguided and show obsessed-with-the-means character. But over the long run (decades to centuries) I would find it very hard to bet against solar energy due to its abundance, sustainability, and increasing economic advantage (Swanson's Law, better batteries, transmission, etc.).
And I don't agree with your statement that "since fossil fuel usage is still increasing rapidly, so it really doesn't matter how fast solar increases". Unless you have a winner-take-all scenario - which energy sources clearly are not an example of - ongoing faster growth rates (here of solar energy) eventually determine which variant rises to the top.
I am not really interested in how accurate previous predictions on the growth of solar were. The key question is how much they have reduced global fossil fuel usage. As I mentioned, increased solar is in addition to increased fossil fuels, not instead of.
I disagree with de Grasse-Tyson. There is only one material reality, so there is only one Truth. He is talking in variations in opinions or faith. He also misses economics, which trumps all those opinions.
Tyson is well known for pretending his ideology is based on Science.
Economic sustainability always trumps environmental sustainability because the economic constraints get hit long before the environmental constraints.
It is absolutely not true that " If enough people abide by it, then it becomes true."
Tell that to the Communists, National Socialists, Fascists, Jacobins, etc.
Ideologues believe that, but in the end, they almost always fail, because their ideas conflict with material reality.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-ideologies-fail
Reality always wins!
I never said this is a "winner take all." Obviously, there will be multiple energy sources. The question is whether solar can reduce global fossil fuel usage by 20-50%.
The rate of solar installs is greater because it is starting from a lower base. The overall amount of non-renewable is growing faster. So solar and wind actually keep falling behind.
And your example of "ongoing faster growth rates" assumes there is replacement, which there is not much of. Both are increasing fast, and that will likely be the case for the foreseeable future.
Also finishing this article and ones you have on this topic,would you consider the idea of Chinese nudging western nations to promote green energy policies and net zero is a baseless conspiracy? Because the difference between the starting goals and outcomes so far of net zero seem to stark to be explained solely by incompetent predictions and romantic optimism.
I am not sure that I understand your question. Do you mean that it is China that is covertly pushing the Green agenda?
If so, then no. The Green energy policies really got started in the 1990s. China was not at all influential in world affairs.
I will write an article on the subject, but here is what I think is going on:
1) An actual problem of climate change, but one that is far less severe than activists claim.
2) Once the problem was discovered by scientists, activists moved into the field of climate science and drove out alternative views.
3) Very unrealistic assumptions that go into the climate models. Ideological bias prevents them from updating those unrealistic assumptions.
4) Once the climate alarm caught on with the Left, it created an information cascade where everyone who started from Left-of-Center views became Green maximalists.
5) Left-of-Center parties found it very useful to simultaneously save the world, earn votes, and disburse money to supporters.
6) Government subsidies, mandates, and ESG created a huge "market" for Green energy manufacturers, utilities, and financial services companies who have a huge financial incentive to pursue government subsidies and mold public opinion to keep the cash flowing. It is very similar to defense contractors, but with far more money devoted to PR.
I hope that answers your question.
Once you combine unrealistic ideological goals to the profit motive, things can get out of control very quickly.
The problem with the late adopter strategy is that you need someone to be the the early one first ,and globally the us has historically fulfilled that role. It is rather discouraging that green energy so far is the best option the brightest minds globally have come up with to mitigate the devastating consequences of climate change.
Thanks for the comment, but I disagree.
I am confident that the Europeans will pour tens of billions of Euros into solar, wind, and utility-scale batteries. My guess is that China will spend even more. Any incremental advantage of the US doing so will have little effect on prices. The US should focus on denser energy sources.
Moreover, Green energy is actually an extremely uncost-effective means to deal with climate change. It is guaranteed to fail.
The reality is that massive change to our energy system will have very little change on future global temperatures:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/pop-quiz-how-much-does-eliminating
Adaptation or some form of geo-engineering is likely far more cost-effective.
And even if mitigation is the goal, replacing coal-burning power plants with extremely-efficient Combined Cycle Natural Gas is far better, particularly in North America. The USA can also assist other nations to follow the same path.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/a-simple-and-cost-effective-plan
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/lets-leverage-american-lng-exports
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-wonders-of-ccgt
Even if you ignore carbon emissions, this strategy still makes more sense, particularly in North America.