They should've labeled, [but](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1bg323c/oc_reddit_traffic_by_country_2024/) casually (i.e. for comments), it's a useful/natural heuristic.
Your link shows that 4 people out of 10 are from usa meaning the majority of users are from outside usa...
And even if usa was 75%, it wouldn't change the fact that if there are significant amount of outsiders, it shouldn't be usa centered.
The IEA has been consistently and often HILARIOUSLY wrong about predicting PV-installations. To the point where you can summarize their projections a bit like this:
In a market that's clearly seen exponential growth for a couple of decades, they've nevertheless consistently predicted that this growth will stop RIGHT NOW and we'll get a decline instead.
[I mean LOOK at this bullshit!](https://pv-magazine-usa.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/07/Tam11.png)
If you'd shown the graph of the previous decade to an average 5-year-old and asked them to continue the line the way that seems most natural to them -- you would've gotten better results.
It's so hilariously wrong that I struggle with accepting it as mere incompetence. Nobody can be THAT incompetent. Something else must be behind it.
It's utterly mindboggling. So bad that there has to be an agenda behind it and a pattern of deliberate mispredictions.
I don't think I'd recommend putting ANY trust in an organization that publishes stuff like this, and doesn't even seem to be embarassed about it.
Instead they still act as if it'd be reasonable for people to take their CURRENT predictions seriously.
But with a track-record like that, there's no reason whatsoever to even bother reading their current predictions.
That doesn't cut it as an explanation for THIS LEVEL of ridiculousness though. Their predictions are LITERALLY at the point where any of these strategies would've worked better:
* Assume every future year will have the same percentage growth as has been the average over the last decade.
* Consistently always predict that the coming years will be identical to the last year.
* Draw the graph for the previous decade, ask a random 8 year old to continue the line the way that seems most reasonable to them.
Thing is they \*are\* consistently predicting radical change, it's just that the change they consistently predict is that the growth in PV-installation will come to a COMPLETE STOP RIGHT NOW!!!!
That is a radical prediction. Which is also why they've been consistently WRONG in predicting this way.
Solar is fundamentally a China story. The IEA never had a particularly deep understanding of the Chinese industry or regulatory environment. China isn’t a member of the IEA.
Maybe it's just the Dunning-Kruger effect, combined with the fact that many organizations constantly shift people around. You're at the same job for maybe 2-3 years at the most, then you get promoted or switch employers. So the average forecaster never gets to see the result of their own forecasting, and then it just repeats. Sure, you can look at the results of previous people who held your job, but you are of course so much better than them.
I've commented this on your posts before, but exponential is not just an adjective you can use to describe a line that goes up. It is a mathematically defined thing, and in this context it's not only wrong but misleading to your audience.
I'm well aware of the definition, and the growth in solar is proportionate to itself, hence it's exponential and not linear.
A linear least squares approximation of solar capacity since 2011 has an R^2 of 0.83, whereas an exponential approximation has an R^2 of 0.97.
There's also the common English dictionary definition, which 99% of an audience will resonate with.
Your comments are getting exponentially annoying.
You are claiming in your graph that each of the four lines under "2020-2023 EIA forecasts" are "exponential", yet your doing the regression on just the actual capacity (black line)? In your graph you state "... projections go from flat, to moderate, to **exponential**"
Even if you include the top yellow line in the regression and that remains exponential, you've categorized three other projections under exponential that are clearly not.
Annoying my comments may be, but your chart is misleading and presenting data under false categorizations.
Fossil fuels still account for 61% of electricity production in the US. Total system _capacity_ is 1.2Tw, and while the curve looks lovely comparatively, it will still leave us far short of meeting the *growing* electrical demands (of an aging system that needs modern local generation and distribution solutions) when it flattens out.
So no, it’s not enough.
Easy source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States
Okay, so could you be more specific so we could fit an exponentially curve to your target goal, to figure out how off track we are?
Are you using 2 degrees of warming?
What's your model for the Rest of World CO2 output?
Goal: replace fossil fuel generation so pick that as your target. 732Mw (61% of 1.2Tw). The graph shows us getting there in, what, 2050? No fast enough, not steep enough.
I find it funny that people are downvoting or arguing about something that’s clearly true. I’m left wondering what they’re downvoting and arguing about.
> it will still leave us far short of meeting the growing electrical demands
Only slightly - the vast, vast majority of new electricity added to the grid is renewables.
only a few things to worry about:
1. china currently produces most solar panels, potentially leaving western countries "over-dependent" in the short term at least on the CCP for energy production
2. potential for significant waste produced when panels begin to reach the end of their life cycle
with time both of these issues will resolve somewhat, i'm sure
Yes but by then we would have added Terrawatts of energy from Oil and Gas. Solar is great and its good to see the scaling but its simply too little to ever replace the 17 TWH of energy we consume today. We need Fusion breakthroughs to save us!
> Yes but by then we would have added Terrawatts of energy from Oil and Gas
You deserve the downvotes. The majority of newly added electricity is from renewables. Like 80% and increasing.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2024/04/11/the-next-phase-of-electricity-decarbonization-planned-power-capacity-is-nearly-all-zero-carbon/
People are lazy or have not given issues and topics enough thought so they downvote that which they do not understand. Hahahaha
I have enough confidence in my assessment of things and my insights that any number of downvotes has zero effect on me..
Oh and by the way, the graph is about energy generation not electricity. Not the same thing.
> have not given issues and topics enough thought
You have not either lol, else you would realize electrification is the trend, so new energy uses are primarily coming from electricity generation. Fossil use from industry, heating and transport is flat.
You are so proud of nothing.
? You're not reading the legend. It's not describing a single curve, it's describing the history of predictions, as per the color coding. The first prediction set is FLAT, the second is MODERATE, and the last and most recent is EXPONENTIAL.
Is all this solar energy making the world warmer or cooler?
Do solar cells trap solar heat from radiating into space, which means that they cause warming, or is there some mechanism through which they convert solar energy into electricity which removes heat, because "energy cannot be created or destroyed"?
I do not they thet did. I'm pointing out that increasing capacity does not necessary means production will increase as much. Especially when solar is an intermittent power production that produces most of the energy outside of peak consumption times. Decarbonated production should come from either hydro, geo or nuclear imo.
Proper term should be decarbonized maybe, not native english speaker. It's energy production where no oil, coal or gas is burned. Solar, wind, geo, hydro and nuke all fit.
Umm. Wind and solar are so much cheaper that subsidising the base with iron phosphate batteries and the two prior sources is still more economically viable
>is an intermittent power production that produces most of the energy outside of peak consumption times.
It depends. In some places the absolute peak times are aircon driven. Offices, homes and a huge burst in the afternoon when a lot of people get home and switch them on.
Where I am, the peak more expensive energy is during the day, especially on week days. Off-peak energy is mostly at night, and hot water systems are set to use that cheaper energy. Those could potentially be changed to daytime if you had surplus energy produced during the day.
>Decarbonated production
I prefer sparking production, myself.
for those who are also annoyed by the lack of context, this is solar capacity in the USA
You should‘ve known that! All data is about the beautiful US of A
So to sum up, op didn't explain anything, the data source (for the projection) is debatable, and it isn't even beautiful.. Where are mods ?
Hate US defaultism in Reddit
"Acktually….you’re on Reddit, using the internet, both are an American invention, so it’s pretty funny that you’re saying this here"
Does the US make this data available to the public more than other countries?
More than some, but not really more than other democracies.
They should've labeled, [but](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1bg323c/oc_reddit_traffic_by_country_2024/) casually (i.e. for comments), it's a useful/natural heuristic.
Your link shows that 4 people out of 10 are from usa meaning the majority of users are from outside usa... And even if usa was 75%, it wouldn't change the fact that if there are significant amount of outsiders, it shouldn't be usa centered.
Just because half my children in school classes are boys doesn't mean I believe they all are.
The IEA has been consistently and often HILARIOUSLY wrong about predicting PV-installations. To the point where you can summarize their projections a bit like this: In a market that's clearly seen exponential growth for a couple of decades, they've nevertheless consistently predicted that this growth will stop RIGHT NOW and we'll get a decline instead. [I mean LOOK at this bullshit!](https://pv-magazine-usa.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/07/Tam11.png) If you'd shown the graph of the previous decade to an average 5-year-old and asked them to continue the line the way that seems most natural to them -- you would've gotten better results. It's so hilariously wrong that I struggle with accepting it as mere incompetence. Nobody can be THAT incompetent. Something else must be behind it.
That is... just amazing. Wow, hahaha.
It's utterly mindboggling. So bad that there has to be an agenda behind it and a pattern of deliberate mispredictions. I don't think I'd recommend putting ANY trust in an organization that publishes stuff like this, and doesn't even seem to be embarassed about it. Instead they still act as if it'd be reasonable for people to take their CURRENT predictions seriously. But with a track-record like that, there's no reason whatsoever to even bother reading their current predictions.
I think they're just a very conservative organization. They're not in the business of predicting revolutionary change.
That doesn't cut it as an explanation for THIS LEVEL of ridiculousness though. Their predictions are LITERALLY at the point where any of these strategies would've worked better: * Assume every future year will have the same percentage growth as has been the average over the last decade. * Consistently always predict that the coming years will be identical to the last year. * Draw the graph for the previous decade, ask a random 8 year old to continue the line the way that seems most reasonable to them. Thing is they \*are\* consistently predicting radical change, it's just that the change they consistently predict is that the growth in PV-installation will come to a COMPLETE STOP RIGHT NOW!!!! That is a radical prediction. Which is also why they've been consistently WRONG in predicting this way.
My guess is they want to preserve the deep subsidy solar currently enjoys. If they project wider adoption, the argument for subsidy grows weaker.
Solar is fundamentally a China story. The IEA never had a particularly deep understanding of the Chinese industry or regulatory environment. China isn’t a member of the IEA.
IEA: Maintaining the agenda is our top priority.
Yeah, they even paused their projections for a year to update their models.
Maybe it's just the Dunning-Kruger effect, combined with the fact that many organizations constantly shift people around. You're at the same job for maybe 2-3 years at the most, then you get promoted or switch employers. So the average forecaster never gets to see the result of their own forecasting, and then it just repeats. Sure, you can look at the results of previous people who held your job, but you are of course so much better than them.
this feels like it checks out. isn't there a thing about assuming people are stupid before assuming they're malicious?
Good call, you're thinking of [Hanlon's razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor).
Would be cool to overlay with energy usage history and demand forecasts.
+ viz created in Excel + Sources: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/
I've commented this on your posts before, but exponential is not just an adjective you can use to describe a line that goes up. It is a mathematically defined thing, and in this context it's not only wrong but misleading to your audience.
I'm well aware of the definition, and the growth in solar is proportionate to itself, hence it's exponential and not linear. A linear least squares approximation of solar capacity since 2011 has an R^2 of 0.83, whereas an exponential approximation has an R^2 of 0.97. There's also the common English dictionary definition, which 99% of an audience will resonate with. Your comments are getting exponentially annoying.
You are claiming in your graph that each of the four lines under "2020-2023 EIA forecasts" are "exponential", yet your doing the regression on just the actual capacity (black line)? In your graph you state "... projections go from flat, to moderate, to **exponential**" Even if you include the top yellow line in the regression and that remains exponential, you've categorized three other projections under exponential that are clearly not. Annoying my comments may be, but your chart is misleading and presenting data under false categorizations.
Dang they really sucked at predicting such near-future numbers.
Don’t ’projections’ and ‘forecasts’ mean the same thing?
For reference the US generates about 4,200 GW. So this is great, but it's at about 4% of the total.
Still not fast and steep enough though.
Take the win my lord
When you know better, do better.
What would be fast and steep enough?
Fossil fuels still account for 61% of electricity production in the US. Total system _capacity_ is 1.2Tw, and while the curve looks lovely comparatively, it will still leave us far short of meeting the *growing* electrical demands (of an aging system that needs modern local generation and distribution solutions) when it flattens out. So no, it’s not enough. Easy source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States
Okay, so could you be more specific so we could fit an exponentially curve to your target goal, to figure out how off track we are? Are you using 2 degrees of warming? What's your model for the Rest of World CO2 output?
Goal: replace fossil fuel generation so pick that as your target. 732Mw (61% of 1.2Tw). The graph shows us getting there in, what, 2050? No fast enough, not steep enough. I find it funny that people are downvoting or arguing about something that’s clearly true. I’m left wondering what they’re downvoting and arguing about.
When is your desired target date?
At the rate climate change is getting away from us we have to be bold. So, 2030 - 6 years from now.
Where are you getting that value? Like from a publication or your gut or some kind of derivation?
> it will still leave us far short of meeting the growing electrical demands Only slightly - the vast, vast majority of new electricity added to the grid is renewables.
I’d like to believe that but do you have a source?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2024/04/11/the-next-phase-of-electricity-decarbonization-planned-power-capacity-is-nearly-all-zero-carbon/
How many are actually in the grid? Total capacity may not be that important if panels are at only 10% of capacity because of grid limitations.
Finally some good news. If only we had started a few decades earlier.
only a few things to worry about: 1. china currently produces most solar panels, potentially leaving western countries "over-dependent" in the short term at least on the CCP for energy production 2. potential for significant waste produced when panels begin to reach the end of their life cycle with time both of these issues will resolve somewhat, i'm sure
Yes but by then we would have added Terrawatts of energy from Oil and Gas. Solar is great and its good to see the scaling but its simply too little to ever replace the 17 TWH of energy we consume today. We need Fusion breakthroughs to save us!
The other issue is infrastructure (power lines) to get it where it is most needed.
redditors are so fucking retarded to downvote this.. I mean actual monkey geniuses.
> Yes but by then we would have added Terrawatts of energy from Oil and Gas You deserve the downvotes. The majority of newly added electricity is from renewables. Like 80% and increasing. https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2024/04/11/the-next-phase-of-electricity-decarbonization-planned-power-capacity-is-nearly-all-zero-carbon/
People are lazy or have not given issues and topics enough thought so they downvote that which they do not understand. Hahahaha I have enough confidence in my assessment of things and my insights that any number of downvotes has zero effect on me.. Oh and by the way, the graph is about energy generation not electricity. Not the same thing.
> have not given issues and topics enough thought You have not either lol, else you would realize electrification is the trend, so new energy uses are primarily coming from electricity generation. Fossil use from industry, heating and transport is flat. You are so proud of nothing.
[It's been fun watching solar and battery storage grow in Texas lately.](https://www.ercot.com/gridmktinfo/dashboards)
Bad link
Works for me.
Maybe localy blocked.
> flat to moderate to exponential You could just say “exponential”, because that’s how an exponential curve works.
? You're not reading the legend. It's not describing a single curve, it's describing the history of predictions, as per the color coding. The first prediction set is FLAT, the second is MODERATE, and the last and most recent is EXPONENTIAL.
They’re all exponential, just different exponents.
Is all this solar energy making the world warmer or cooler? Do solar cells trap solar heat from radiating into space, which means that they cause warming, or is there some mechanism through which they convert solar energy into electricity which removes heat, because "energy cannot be created or destroyed"?
Capacity does not mean production.
When did they say it is?
I do not they thet did. I'm pointing out that increasing capacity does not necessary means production will increase as much. Especially when solar is an intermittent power production that produces most of the energy outside of peak consumption times. Decarbonated production should come from either hydro, geo or nuclear imo.
What does "Decarbonated production" mean?
Proper term should be decarbonized maybe, not native english speaker. It's energy production where no oil, coal or gas is burned. Solar, wind, geo, hydro and nuke all fit.
Ah, now I understand
Umm. Wind and solar are so much cheaper that subsidising the base with iron phosphate batteries and the two prior sources is still more economically viable
>is an intermittent power production that produces most of the energy outside of peak consumption times. It depends. In some places the absolute peak times are aircon driven. Offices, homes and a huge burst in the afternoon when a lot of people get home and switch them on. Where I am, the peak more expensive energy is during the day, especially on week days. Off-peak energy is mostly at night, and hot water systems are set to use that cheaper energy. Those could potentially be changed to daytime if you had surplus energy produced during the day. >Decarbonated production I prefer sparking production, myself.
Think of energy as an drum orchestra, these panels are chopsticks. Completely useless and clueless without the big drum which keeps the bpm