Fascinating framing of electrotech as inheriting IT's momentum. The parallel between chip manufacturing and solar/battery production really clarifies why the scale-up is happening so fast. One thing that stands out is the point about physics favoring electrons over combustion, the 2/3 energy waste in fossil systems isn't talked aobut enough when comparing pathways forward.
lol! After 25 years and $20T wind and solar represent less than 3% of energy *actually* generated and used. 2025 was a record ear for new solar/wind, yet at the 2025 rate it would take 100-400 years to displace current useful (non-heat waste) fossil energy setting aside any growth. People, look at the actual energy generated, not nameplate installed, two very, very different numbers. Spreadsheet is right here with the *real* numbers - https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
It's not clear you read the article you link to. From the link you use, the 3% figure looks like its from 1990 (paragraph 5). The circular chart at the top of the article shows that Other Renewables was 5.5% (a small part of this would be bio fuels, but this is nothing close to 1.5%).
Where do you get the 20TUSD number from? I do know that crazy numbers given for this exclude the costs of business as usual where existing infrastructure would have needed to be replaced but has not. For example a new car is a new car regardless of the fuel, but if you only include the EV cost and exclude the ICE cost you are a cheat.
Where do you get the 100 to 400 years number from? I can see from the article that renewable growth is 5 times that of non renewable, and simply extrapolating that out, with no regard to total energy need, renewable would reach 50% of total in about 50 years (and 90% in 70 years). BUT total energy need will not rise like this. Assuming a constant rise in total need of 2% then without any other changes renewable would supply 100% of energy need by approx 2065.
I used the spreadsheet. I don't know what you used.
Fascinating framing of electrotech as inheriting IT's momentum. The parallel between chip manufacturing and solar/battery production really clarifies why the scale-up is happening so fast. One thing that stands out is the point about physics favoring electrons over combustion, the 2/3 energy waste in fossil systems isn't talked aobut enough when comparing pathways forward.
lol! After 25 years and $20T wind and solar represent less than 3% of energy *actually* generated and used. 2025 was a record ear for new solar/wind, yet at the 2025 rate it would take 100-400 years to displace current useful (non-heat waste) fossil energy setting aside any growth. People, look at the actual energy generated, not nameplate installed, two very, very different numbers. Spreadsheet is right here with the *real* numbers - https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
It's not clear you read the article you link to. From the link you use, the 3% figure looks like its from 1990 (paragraph 5). The circular chart at the top of the article shows that Other Renewables was 5.5% (a small part of this would be bio fuels, but this is nothing close to 1.5%).
Where do you get the 20TUSD number from? I do know that crazy numbers given for this exclude the costs of business as usual where existing infrastructure would have needed to be replaced but has not. For example a new car is a new car regardless of the fuel, but if you only include the EV cost and exclude the ICE cost you are a cheat.
Where do you get the 100 to 400 years number from? I can see from the article that renewable growth is 5 times that of non renewable, and simply extrapolating that out, with no regard to total energy need, renewable would reach 50% of total in about 50 years (and 90% in 70 years). BUT total energy need will not rise like this. Assuming a constant rise in total need of 2% then without any other changes renewable would supply 100% of energy need by approx 2065.
I used the spreadsheet. I don't know what you used.