7 ms·

> (Or we could be building one 400 MW solar farm and one 400 MW wind farm every week instead for 30 years. Point is, though, we're far from being able to do tha

> (Or we could be building one 400 MW solar farm and one 400 MW wind farm every week instead for 30 years. Point is, though, we're far from being able to do that.) That's actually lower than what the USA is doing right now. "The US solar industry installed 6.1 gigawatts-direct current (GWdc) of capacity in the first quarter of 2023"[0] That is approx 469 MW of power being installed every week. [0]https://www.seia.org/us-solar-market-insight https://www.seia.org/us-solar-market-insight (first link I could find)

SamBam 3y ago
Sorry, I realize I was being confusing by measuring in 400 MW farms: the total required was 800 MW/week, which we're not hitting yet. We are at the right order of magnitude, though, as you show. The question is whether we can hit the actual number required (which is close to double what we have now) and sustain it for another three decades.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  > sustain it for another three decades You keep saying "sustain", but solar has been growing exponentially and there is still no sign of an inflection. "Sustaining" a rate of growth is the wrong concept to model it.
  - SamBam 3y ago
    I disagree. Just because there's no sign of inflection yet in is earliest period of exponential growth doesn't mean that the conditions to keep building at this rate (or, rather, faster) will remain for another 30 years. We're in a period with low-hanging fruit. Lots of available space. Lots of roofs that don't have don't panels yet. Lots of mines churning our rare elements. What will happen as solar starts to saturate the market, and the price of electricity continues to fall (thus lowering the incentive to build more farms) while the available space shrinks and the number of rare elements decreases (increasing the cost of farms)? I'm not saying this will happen, but it was mentioned in the Greens Dilemma article posted and, and is certainly worth thinking about.
    - marcosdumay 3y ago
      So now you want to know for how long it can keep accelerating. That one is a good question to ask. If the rate of change can be sustained is not. And by the way, linearly extrapolating the current rate of change into the future, like you did on your original comment is equality useless. But yes, this one comment has a useful model. By the way, you can look how much rare earth elements are actually needed, how much mining them can grow, how much space are there for the panels, and how much the panel price can theoretically fall. I don't think anything I say will convince you, so yeah, go look, because your comment shows a lack of awareness of any of those factors. But of course, it won't keep the exponential growth for 30 years. That would make the PV output orders of magnitude larger than our current energy consumption. If nothing yields by them, it will stop for lack of demand. Demanding it to keep going for that long is completely unreasonable.
      - SamBam 3y ago
        I'm not asking how long it can keep accelerating. You keep making things overly-complicated. We (per the estimates above) need to be installing about 800 MW of new renewable power generation every week every week for the next 30 years. We're currently at about 400 MW installed every week. So we need to grow to somewhere around or above that target, and then sustain that same rate for 30 years. (Or possibly fewer years if we are installing way above that rate.) My question is simply, given that large rate of installation, can we actually sustain that rate for 30 years? Presumably we will eventually be hitting that target rate, at least, and hopefully we will continue to do so for some time. But if markets don't continue to support installing solar at that same pace in 10 or 20 years, we won't hit our targets. That's all I'm saying.
        marcosdumay 3y ago
        So, you are asking if solar can technically replace all of our energy needs? In a time independent fashion? That one has plenty of stuff written about. Yes, it can. One other good question to ask is how much of it will be replaced on the next 5 or 10 years. That's where all the discussion is, because if it takes 30 years, we'd better also invest in alternatives, like nuclear. (And wherever the price of electricity goes, the cost structure doesn't automatically change. Thus if the market stops supporting investing in solar in 10 years, everything except for natural gas and wind will be already bankrupt. Oh, and if the current changes on the cost structure continue for 10 years - there's some reason for them not to - you can cut wind from that list too. In other words, if you concern is about the cheapest form of generation becoming unprofitable, that automatically means we just don't really want more energy.)

SamBam 3y ago

Sorry, I realize I was being confusing by measuring in 400 MW farms: the total required was 800 MW/week, which we're not hitting yet. We are at the right order of magnitude, though, as you show. The question is whether we can hit the actual number required (which is close to double what we have now) and sustain it for another three decades.

marcosdumay 3y ago
> sustain it for another three decades You keep saying "sustain", but solar has been growing exponentially and there is still no sign of an inflection. "Sustaining" a rate of growth is the wrong concept to model it.
- SamBam 3y ago
  I disagree. Just because there's no sign of inflection yet in is earliest period of exponential growth doesn't mean that the conditions to keep building at this rate (or, rather, faster) will remain for another 30 years. We're in a period with low-hanging fruit. Lots of available space. Lots of roofs that don't have don't panels yet. Lots of mines churning our rare elements. What will happen as solar starts to saturate the market, and the price of electricity continues to fall (thus lowering the incentive to build more farms) while the available space shrinks and the number of rare elements decreases (increasing the cost of farms)? I'm not saying this will happen, but it was mentioned in the Greens Dilemma article posted and, and is certainly worth thinking about.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    So now you want to know for how long it can keep accelerating. That one is a good question to ask. If the rate of change can be sustained is not. And by the way, linearly extrapolating the current rate of change into the future, like you did on your original comment is equality useless. But yes, this one comment has a useful model. By the way, you can look how much rare earth elements are actually needed, how much mining them can grow, how much space are there for the panels, and how much the panel price can theoretically fall. I don't think anything I say will convince you, so yeah, go look, because your comment shows a lack of awareness of any of those factors. But of course, it won't keep the exponential growth for 30 years. That would make the PV output orders of magnitude larger than our current energy consumption. If nothing yields by them, it will stop for lack of demand. Demanding it to keep going for that long is completely unreasonable.
    - SamBam 3y ago
      I'm not asking how long it can keep accelerating. You keep making things overly-complicated. We (per the estimates above) need to be installing about 800 MW of new renewable power generation every week every week for the next 30 years. We're currently at about 400 MW installed every week. So we need to grow to somewhere around or above that target, and then sustain that same rate for 30 years. (Or possibly fewer years if we are installing way above that rate.) My question is simply, given that large rate of installation, can we actually sustain that rate for 30 years? Presumably we will eventually be hitting that target rate, at least, and hopefully we will continue to do so for some time. But if markets don't continue to support installing solar at that same pace in 10 or 20 years, we won't hit our targets. That's all I'm saying.
      - marcosdumay 3y ago
        So, you are asking if solar can technically replace all of our energy needs? In a time independent fashion? That one has plenty of stuff written about. Yes, it can. One other good question to ask is how much of it will be replaced on the next 5 or 10 years. That's where all the discussion is, because if it takes 30 years, we'd better also invest in alternatives, like nuclear. (And wherever the price of electricity goes, the cost structure doesn't automatically change. Thus if the market stops supporting investing in solar in 10 years, everything except for natural gas and wind will be already bankrupt. Oh, and if the current changes on the cost structure continue for 10 years - there's some reason for them not to - you can cut wind from that list too. In other words, if you concern is about the cheapest form of generation becoming unprofitable, that automatically means we just don't really want more energy.)