<div dir="ltr">On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Eugen Leitl <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eugen@leitl.org" target="_blank">eugen@leitl.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:43:03AM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote:<br>
<br>
> I present this as refutation of the idea that hard drives are approaching<br>
> the end of their exponential growth, even in their current state.<br>
<br>
</div>I present above statement as evidence that I can write anything,<br>
because nobody is going to read it, anyway. (Or, perhaps, I shouldn't<br>
bother writing anything at all, and save us all the aggravation).<br>
<br>
Either you believe in linear semilog plots, or you don't.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I believe they are a good approximation in many areas.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
So any deviation from a linear semilog is either evidence for you<br>
or against you. You can't have it both ways.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Agreed. Though you have to compare apples to apples, and sometimes that's hard. For example, we can talk about the exponential growth of hard drive space, but that negates the value of getting at those bits faster, which is also important.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Either you believe that there is a magic mechanism by which<br>
a technology arises just in time to be passed on the torch from<br>
the failing without stumbling, or you don't.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It's not magic. It is the result of work.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
If there's a falure to bridge the gap you'll get a kink in<br>
the curve, and inverted hockey stick. Some gaps are very short,<br>
some less so. You don't get to cherrypick which gaps are<br>
significant, and which aren't.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If the gaps are not leaped, then yes, it's a problem for the model. It may also be the case that the measured doubling period was incorrect.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
So in 2027 the world will have 16 TW cumulated PV<br>
capacity, that's 48 TWp (currently it has 0.1 TWp,<br>
added within 20 years, this is lost in the error<br>
margins).<br>
<br>
You've got 7 doublings yet to go. I'll spell Ray's implications<br>
out, all errors are mine:<br>
<br>
year added capacity TWp<br>
<br>
2010<br>
+0.06 TWp (actual data)<br>
2012<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
2013<br>
+0.19 TWp (so far 0.037 TWp added in 2013, my guess this will be 0.077 TWp instead of 0.19 TWp, so -0.113 TWp gap)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>So let me make sure I understand what you're saying. You're saying that Ray predicted that there would be 0.19 TWp installed by year end 2013, and there is actually 0.077 TWp installed.</div>
<div><br></div><div>According to Wikipedia, <span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px;line-height:19.19791603088379px">by end of 2012, the 100 GW installed capacity milestone was achieved. If my math is correct, that makes 0.1 TWp, and there is still a year between that number and the end of 2013. So where does the 0.077 come from?</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>The thing that I remember Ray saying is that the price of solar panels per watt was on a curve. Are we at all on target for that?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Ray gets things wrong, but so far, he has gotten more right than he has gotten wrong. I never said it was a perfect science, but I know of no better approach for trying to predict the future. Do you?</div>
<div><br></div><div>The thing that Ray sometimes misses is human psychology issues and infrastructure issues. I've long said he was wrong about speech recognition. He isn't a god and I'm not his acolyte. </div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
2015<br>
+0.38 TWp (mind the gap?)<br>
2017<br>
+1.5 TWp (mind the gap?)<br>
2019<br>
+3.0 TWp (mind the gap?)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.renewindians.com/2013/02/global-installed-solar-capacity-to-Reach-330GW-by-2020.html">http://www.renewindians.com/2013/02/global-installed-solar-capacity-to-Reach-330GW-by-2020.html</a><br>
</div><div><br></div>According to Global Data The Global Solar PV installed capacity will leap frog from the current 96GW to 330GW by 2020 and will showcase a CAGR of 16.5%.<br><br>In another article, it states:<br>“No one would have predicted even 10 years ago that we would see more than 100 GW of solar photovoltaic capacity in the world by 2012,” said EPIA President Winfried Hoffmann. “The photovoltaic industry clearly faces challenges but the results of 2012 show there is a strong global market for our technology. Even in tough economic times and despite growing regulatory uncertainty, we have nearly managed to repeat the record year of 2011.”</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">So by your rendering of Ray's Numbers, by 2020 Ray predicts that we will have just under 5 TWp installed, and the solar industry is thinking more like 330 GW will be installed by then.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">I'd be willing to bet here on the record that we will have more than 330 GW installed by 2020.<br><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
2021<br>
+6.0 TWp (mind the gap?)<br>
2023<br>
+12 TWp (mind the gap?)<br>
2025<br>
+24 TWp (mind the gap?)<br>
2027<br>
<br>
Do these numbers really look good to you? You'll notice we're already kinda<br>
off-track, here.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>They don't look especially good, no. But I was discussing hard drive prices and then you changed the subject before we could talk numbers.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
How do you like your serving of crow? Roasted, boiled, smoked?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Roasted please. 2012 was a bad year for solar. They didn't sell as much as they did in 2011. Not making excuses, but I don't think anyone would have predicted that. Ray is famous for saying that economic downturns won't effect his data over the long term, but in this case I'm guessing that is precisely what has happened.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Kelly</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>