The IEA continues to underestimate solar and the discrepancy remains stunning.
The first time I conceived of this visualization in 2010 or so, I expected it to be a temporary anomaly.
But reality continues to outpace predictions.
(Thx @CarbonBrief for making the update.)
Maybe you think: this can't possibly be true!
If so you are not alone.
But it goes back to the first IEA PV predictions from 2002.
Here's a blogpost where I explain how and why I made this graph.
(And yes, that's my younger self, minus the beard.) maartensteinbuch.com/2017/06/12/pho…
Why the underestimation?
Maybe because fuel is burned and lost, while the solar industry produces an exponentially growing number of devices that each produce energy for 20-40 years.
My mission in life is to accelerate the transition from fossil fuel to renewables. My research projects at the @TUeindhoven do that, my firms do that, my wife works on it, we live in an energy positive house, eat vegan, and drive electric...
So I'm really not a fan of coal! But..
For the time being we still need coal to power our coal fired power plants. Replacing that infrastructure with low carbon alternatives takes planning, effort, and money.
I see @Toyota's chief scientist Gill Pratt everywhere with his seemingly 'sober' claim that scarce lithium should be used in small batteries for hybrid cars (that Toyota is market leader in of course).
He's calling out "EV-only extremists".
And it's such utter bollox.
🧵
IF lithium supply was fixed and small,
AND IF electric vehicles batteries could only use lithium,
And did you know we already know where to find lithium for almost ten billion full-EVs and we are constantly finding more resources while the ocean contains thousands of times more than the resources we know on land?
First off: Eric (@ElephantEating) is one of my favorite researchers and I think of him as a 100% good person.
And I understand marginal emission factors are tempting: they look cool and advanced and show you care about emissions. And yet they are simple to use.
But I think they are misleading nonsense.
To show how their pseudo precision goes wrong I need a numerical example.
I've made it super simple!
Consider a country existing of identical households that all use 15 kWh of electricity per day.
"EVs will ruin the climate" is the message of this new @Guardian clickbait piece, focussing on how electric vehicle batteries need lithium, while mining is bad for the planet.
I think this crusade is unhelpful and the number for lithium mining presented 1000x too high.
🧵
To be clear: the original study doesn't put it so crudely, and I fully agree it's better for both livable cities and the climate if we drive less/smaller/shared cars.
This article claims energy reduction is the only way Australia will get all its energy from renewables, but one could also argue solar and wind just need to continue growing like in the 1991-2021 period.
Also: in 2015 wind and solar where below 49 TWh per year and in 2019 they where 100 TWh: they more than doubled. ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy…
Saying they grew by 62% over this period (because you included hydro that grew a bit less) is misleading.
So all I did was fit curves over the data.
Final energy use is growing a bit less than linear with 22.5 TWh per year (R2 98.5%).
An S-curve over solar and wind (1991-2021) can get close to perfect: R2 value 99.52%.
(Exponential fit is also great 96% but is illogical.)