Note that "the IEA was initially designed to help countries co-ordinate a collective response to major disruptions in the supply of oil." So they have a bit of an institutional bias. And they aren't being asked to bet on these predictions.
An interesting example of how a big smart organization can consistently underestimate a fairly clear trend (solar energy growth). And appear very confused about what a forecast means. https://steinbuch.wordpress.com/2017/06/12/photovoltaic-growth-reality-versus-projections-of-the-international-energy-agency/ …pic.twitter.com/6lfpv6WpIq
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is beyond exponential. It's vertical growth
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Wow, they are really consistent over time at giving crappy estimates!
-
It's hard to make a capacity estimate based upon early production numbers. When something is less than 1% of utilization it'd be premature to say "this thing will be 90% in 20 years." They finally do it in the 2018 report, after 3 solid years of exponential growth.
-
Yup, but somewhere around 2010 they should at least have expected linear growth based on previous years, at least not negative growth...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
They've actually come around and believe solar will take over everything. I don't know when they started to project, that, however. But in NPS 2018 they definitely see it happening.pic.twitter.com/pzswiOMss6
-
Total installed?
-
Yeah, installed capacity.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Nervous IEA officials huddle around a table late at night. “It’s got to level off at some point, right?” one pleads.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Looks like a bluff on the threshold of agony initiated & lobbied by oil industry monopolies.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That is a lot worse than I'd expect. I'd expect linear predictions for an exponential model, but this is *near-constant* predictions for an exponential model.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
“Let’s look at last year. Germany installed four percent more solar panels but generated three percent less electricity from solar.”http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/11/21/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-nuclear-power-transcript-of-michael-shellenbergers-tedx-berlin-2017 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Maybe they underestimated the Federal Government’s complicit reimbursement program or repayment program?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I wonder if the key failure of imagination was assuming that the growth (if any) was only going to be driven by gov’ts subsidizing the uneconomic deployment of PVs to fight a (subsidized) battle against climate change; projections look reasonable if real costs weren’t falling
-
Click through and read. There’s a detailed analysis of why the model is consistently wrong and a call to open source the model and data. At root its an economic equilibrium model which can’t capture an exponential change.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This looks a lot like historical predictions about AAPL stock price. It betrays a fundamental failure to understand the factors driving success.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This falls in the bucket of reasons of why NOT to legalize weed.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Reminds me of IEA history of oil price forecasts. Completely detached from reality.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.