While writing previous post, I got intrigued by the graph representing the electricity generation forecast until 2032, especially that yellow line representing the exponential growth of solar PV and wind. To recapitulate, this is the graph I am talking about:
The authors claim that this graph represents:
Current world electricity generation trends, extrapolated to 2032
They also state that the growth rate of solar PV was 28% and that of wind was 13% between 2012 and 2016. The yellow line, being a combination of solar PV and wind, will be somewhere between those two values.
The suggestion is that this growth of solar PV and wind is somehow established between 2012 and 2016, therefor could be used to extrapolate future values that give rise to that exponentially increasing yellow graph line. I wondered whether such trend really could been found between 2012 and 2016, so I looked at the values of electricity generation that I used for previous post:
|Year||Solar + wind (TWh)||Difference (%)|
That is interesting. The first value of 2013 (difference between 2012 – 2013) is rather high and the years that follow all have lower values. Okay, that is for only four years, what about the value of 2012 (difference between 2011 and 2012)?. In last post, I assembled the data from different BP reports, but looking closer, I made it myself rather difficult. I could as well have used the underpinning data. When I look up the difference from 2012 compared to 2011, the value is 25.07%. Which is only a tad higher than the 2013 value. If I now put that in a graph then I get this:
The average trend of those five years is 20.91% (thin green line). The authors may even used a slightly bigger trend: starting with a value of 630 TWh in 2012, it requires a 21.5% increase to get a value of a tad above 30,000 TWh in 2032 as seen in their graph (but this could be due to the inaccurate way that the graph is drawn). Whatever the case, the growth rate for that yellow line seems to be around 21%. I will use the 20.91% from the BP data in what follows.
So, they seem to have used the mean of the trend between 2012 and 2016. This is rather misleading, since the trend in their reference period is actually going down.
Okay, maybe this is just a recent trend? Let’s just double the period and look at the last ten years:
|Year||Solar + wind (TWh)||Difference (%)|
This is how it looks like as a graph (the thin green line is the base trend 2012-2016 and used by the authors for projection into 2032):
It is obviously not a recent trend, it is part of a longer downward trend. If it were fluctuating around this 21% line, then I would not even been bothered by such claim, but now there is a clear trend and it is decreasing.
When I think about it, it should not be surprising that the trend is decreasing over time. Expecting an exponential growth is wonderful in theory, but can be challenging in practice. In the beginning, it is rather easy to add 21% each year, but it will get ever steeper when time goes by and then it will get tougher to meet that 21% requirement each year. As also seen in their graph.
When it now suffices to add only hundred or a couple hundreds TWh per year, from 2024 it reaches one thousand TWh and at the end it is required to add almost 6,000 TWh a year. If electricity generation from solar and wind aren’t even able to cope with a 21% growth in the reference period when production is only in the hundreds TWh, then how plausible is it to assume that it will catch up when production needs to be in the thousands TWh? Especially knowing that the capacity factor of solar PV and wind (13% for solar PV and 23% for wind in 2016).
In the period 2012 → 2016, the values drop from almost 25% to somewhat above 19%. In the period 2007 – 2016, the values drop from almost 30% to somewhat above 19%. That is roughly 1 percentage point per year in both cases. If such a 1 percentage point trend continues, then production will slam into the x-axis within two decades. Meaning that growth of solar and wind will stagnates and will flatline.
When I incorporate the decreasing growth trend (decreasing 1 percentage point per year) and compare it with the idealized growth figures (increasing 20.91% per year), then I get this:
That is quite a difference. The yellow line is the 20.91% growth scenario, similar to the yellow line of the authors. The orange line represents the decreasing growth scenario that we see between 2012 – 2016. It is not the idealized unicorn-sprinkled-with-pixies-dust extrapolation that the authors started from, it is the extrapolation of the actual trend as there was in their reference period.
Okay, but could it not be that the authors start from the assumption that production of solar PV and wind will start ramping up from 2017 on? I don’t think that is the case. Their claim was that their graph respresents “Current world electricity generation trends, extrapolated to 2032”, so they assume that the exponential increasing yellow line is a continuation of the 2012 – 2016 trend. Which is not true according to the BP figures.
Some questions to conclude.
Did solar PV and wind grew in the period 2012 – 2016? Sure, production increased from 630 TWh in 2012 to 1293 TWh in 2016.
Was the average growth of solar PV and wind production about 21% in the reference period? Sure, it was.
Does this 21% increase results in an exponential growing curve similar to the yellow line in the author’s graph? It surely does.
Is it okay then for the authors to use that number as the trend into the future? Absolutely not! There is a clear trend DOWNWARDS in their reference period (and even before that) which is not taken into account when making the extrapolation. It is misleading to use the average of a downwards trending growth and assume that this will be the future trend from then on.
I recall my basic statistics of epidemiology where we were advised that only fools extrapolate and the further extrapolation, the more of a fool you were. Thank you for proving my professor right again.
The authors did even more than that. They glossed over/ignored/dismissed the downward trend in their reference period (and before that) and did not take this into account while extrapolating,. Therefor being ignorant or maybe even deceitful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Looking at their disclosure statement (they both receive funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency), that is indeed also a possibility.
As always when they (the faithful warmistas) sing the praises of “renewables”: The devil is in the detail. Fortunately for us, there often are sharp eyes to see the devils (in detail)!
I am afraid that it is not that heroic. Initially, I only had the impression that there was something fishy with that graph, but couldn’t pinpoint what it was specifically. This made look at the claims of the authors a bit deeper, trying to recreate the graph, finding the growth being a tad over 21%, then looking at the BP data which seems to confirm that angle, then stumbling on the downward trend in their reference period and so on and so on. It is more like a mole digging blindly through several layers of dirt than an eagle circling high in the sky 😉
The problem with this approach is that it is too little too late. Just look at the sheer number of websites and blogs that brought this story verbatim and uncritically, generating loads of hurrahs for solar and wind. This post came more than a month later. Just a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the tidal wave that flooded the media a month ago.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That graph looks a lot like the projected temperatures graph comparing climate models to reality, which also diverges further every year. Maybe they use the same ‘methods’ 😉
They have the same underlying principle, but different intentions.
Climate projections show only the negative side and ignore/minimize the positive side. This to make it seem worse than it is in reality.
Alternative energy projections only show the positive side and ignore/minimize the negative side. This to make it seem more effective than they are in reality, in order to propose them as the ideal solution to prevent the horrors presented in those climate change projections.